GMAT Quiz: Strengthen Arguments

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Strengthen Arguments, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for GMAT.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

Question 1

1. Surveys show that former bus riders most often cite uncertainty about the fare cards—not schedule changes, fare increases, or longer travel times—as the chief reason they no longer ride. (correct answer)
2. The city's light-rail system, which does not use the new contactless cards, also experienced a slight decline in ridership last quarter.
3. The percentage of buses arriving late during the quarter was roughly the same as in previous quarters, according to automated tracking data.
4. Several other cities adopted contactless fare cards last year without seeing any immediate change—positive or negative—in their bus ridership totals.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to find evidence that makes the given explanation more likely to be true. The transit authority claims that rider confusion about new contactless fare cards caused the 7% ridership drop. The strongest support comes from direct evidence linking the proposed cause to the observed effect. Choice A provides exactly this—surveys showing that former riders cite uncertainty about fare cards as their primary reason for stopping bus use, rather than other common factors like schedule changes or fare increases. This directly validates the authority's explanation by demonstrating that confused riders actually left the system for the reason claimed. Choice B weakens rather than strengthens the argument. If the light-rail system (without contactless cards) also saw ridership decline, this suggests broader factors beyond fare card confusion might be responsible for transit ridership drops generally. Choice C is neutral at best. While it rules out late arrivals as an alternative explanation, it doesn't provide positive evidence that fare card confusion was the actual cause. Eliminating one alternative doesn't prove your preferred explanation. Choice D also weakens the argument. If other cities implemented similar cards without ridership changes, this suggests the cards themselves aren't inherently problematic, making Arbordale's explanation less plausible. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, look for answer choices that provide direct, positive evidence for the conclusion rather than just eliminating alternatives. The best strengtheners often include survey data, expert testimony, or statistical correlations that directly support the causal relationship being proposed.

Question 2

1. The average rooftop solar system in Norvia offsets about twice the amount of carbon per year that a typical gasoline-powered car emits.
2. Most Norvian homeowners who installed solar panels during the credit's first year say that they would not have done so without the financial incentive. (correct answer)
3. Utility-scale wind farms, which compete for government funding, produce electricity at slightly lower cost than do rooftop solar arrays.
4. Some homeowners delay installing rooftop solar panels because they believe panel prices will fall further in coming years.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to identify what would make the conclusion more likely to be true. The analyst predicts that maintaining the tax credit will reduce carbon emissions by at least 5 percent within five years. The correct answer is B because it directly supports the causal link between the tax credit and solar panel adoption. If most homeowners who installed panels say they wouldn't have done so without the financial incentive, this proves the credit is actually driving installations rather than just subsidizing purchases that would have happened anyway. Without this causal relationship, the analyst's prediction falls apart. Let's examine why the other choices don't strengthen the argument: A fails to strengthen because knowing how much carbon one solar system offsets doesn't tell us whether the tax credit will actually increase installations enough to reach the 5 percent reduction target. C actually weakens the argument by suggesting wind farms might be a better investment for the government, potentially reducing support for solar credits. D introduces a complicating factor that could slow solar adoption, which would weaken rather than strengthen the prediction about achieving the carbon reduction within five years. Remember that strengthen/weaken questions often test whether you can identify what makes a causal argument more or less convincing. Look for answer choices that either support the proposed cause-and-effect relationship or provide additional evidence that the predicted outcome will occur. The wrong answers frequently offer irrelevant information or introduce factors that actually undermine the argument.

Question 3

1. In a test run of the campaign, 18 percent of targeted users bought tickets within a week, compared with the theater's usual online conversion rate of just 5 percent. (correct answer)
2. The campaign's content was created by the same advertising agency that designed a successful promotion for a nearby art museum.
3. Theater patrons who buy tickets online tend to spend more on concessions than do those who buy tickets at the door.
4. Most people who clicked on the theater's earlier ads did so because of a limited-time discount offer that has since expired.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to find evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. Here, the theater claims its social-media campaign will boost ticket sales by targeting people who clicked ads but didn't buy tickets. Choice A provides the strongest support because it offers direct, quantitative evidence that this exact strategy works. The test run shows that 18% of targeted users (those who clicked but didn't purchase) bought tickets within a week—more than triple the theater's usual 5% online conversion rate. This dramatic improvement directly validates the theater's assertion that targeting this specific audience will increase sales. Choice B is weak because knowing the same agency created a successful museum campaign doesn't guarantee success for a theater campaign. Different audiences, products, and market conditions make this comparison unreliable. Choice C is irrelevant to whether the campaign will boost ticket sales. Information about concession spending by online buyers doesn't address whether more people will actually purchase tickets through this new campaign. Choice D actually undermines the argument by suggesting that previous ad clicks were motivated by expired discounts, not genuine interest in the theater. This implies the targeted audience may be less likely to buy tickets without those incentives. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, look for evidence that directly relates to the specific claim being made. Concrete data showing the proposed strategy already working (like A) is typically stronger than indirect comparisons or irrelevant information.

Question 4

1. A recent survey found that nearly 60 percent of Elmhurst residents who have never visited the museum cited inconvenient hours as the main reason. (correct answer)
2. Several other city museums already remain open until 9 p.m. on weekends but report no significant rise in annual attendance.
3. The museum's evening operating costs would be lower in summer because reduced lighting is needed during the longer daylight hours.
4. The museum's most popular exhibit last year was a series of free lunchtime concerts held in its courtyard.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to find evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The museum board concludes that evening hours will increase attendance enough to offset costs, based on the premise that working people can only visit after 6 p.m. Choice A provides the strongest support by directly addressing whether there's actually unmet demand for evening hours. If 60% of non-visitors cite inconvenient hours as their main barrier, this strongly suggests that extended hours would indeed attract new visitors—exactly what the board's argument requires. Let's examine why the other choices fail to strengthen the argument. Choice B actually weakens it by showing that other museums with evening weekend hours haven't seen attendance increases, suggesting the board's strategy might not work. Choice C discusses lower summer operating costs due to natural lighting, but this doesn't address whether attendance will increase enough to justify the year-round expense. Choice D mentions successful lunchtime concerts, but daytime events don't provide evidence that evening hours would attract visitors. The key trap here is confusing "related to museums" with "strengthens this specific argument." Choices B, C, and D all contain museum-related information that might seem relevant, but they don't directly support the causal claim that evening hours will boost attendance sufficiently. Strategy tip: In strengthen/weaken questions, always identify the specific gap between premise and conclusion. Look for answer choices that provide evidence directly addressing that gap, not just tangentially related information.

Question 5

1. Among students enrolled in last semester's pilot course that added weekly live discussions, the proportion who completed all assignments was 25 percent higher than in comparable courses without such sessions. (correct answer)
2. Students who enroll in the university's online courses come from a wide variety of cultural and educational backgrounds.
3. The cost of integrating live-discussion technology into existing online courses is relatively modest compared with the university's total IT budget.
4. Several faculty members are concerned that live discussions will require more of their time than prerecorded lectures do.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen" question in verbal reasoning, you're looking for evidence that makes the given argument more convincing. The university's claim is that interactive features will raise completion rates, supported by research about real-time discussions. Choice A provides the strongest support because it offers concrete, relevant evidence. The 25% higher completion rate in courses with weekly live discussions directly demonstrates that interactive features improve outcomes. This data specifically validates the university's claim with measurable results from their own student population. Choice B is incorrect because student diversity doesn't address whether interactive features improve completion rates. While demographic variety might be relevant to course design generally, it neither supports nor undermines the claim about interactive features' effectiveness. Choice C fails because cost considerations don't strengthen the argument about educational outcomes. Even if implementation is affordable, this doesn't prove that interactive features will actually improve completion rates—it only shows the university can afford to try. Choice D actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. Faculty concerns about increased workload suggest potential implementation challenges that could undermine the program's success, making the claim less credible. Remember that strengthen questions require evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. Look for answer choices that provide relevant data, expert testimony, or logical support that directly relates to the specific claim being made. Avoid choices that discuss tangential issues like cost or logistics unless they directly impact the argument's validity.

Question 6

1. After similar cameras were installed in a neighboring city, the number of right-angle collisions at monitored intersections fell by 40 percent within a year. (correct answer)
2. Some drivers choose alternate routes to avoid intersections known to have red-light cameras.
3. Maintenance costs for each camera are expected to decline as newer, more reliable models become available.
4. Public opinion surveys show that a slim majority of residents oppose automated traffic enforcement measures.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to identify the conclusion and find evidence that makes that reasoning more convincing. Here, the officials conclude that red-light cameras will reduce accidents because drivers will avoid running red lights when they know violations are recorded. Choice A provides the strongest support by offering direct evidence that the proposed solution actually works. Real data showing a 40% reduction in right-angle collisions (the type most commonly caused by red-light running) at monitored intersections demonstrates that the cameras achieve their intended effect. This empirical evidence directly supports the officials' reasoning chain. Choice B actually weakens the argument by suggesting drivers might simply avoid camera-monitored intersections rather than change their behavior, potentially shifting problems elsewhere rather than solving them. Choice C about declining maintenance costs is irrelevant to whether cameras reduce accidents—it only addresses implementation costs. Choice D about public opposition also misses the point; citizen approval doesn't determine whether cameras are effective at preventing accidents. The trap here is confusing strengthening evidence with related but irrelevant information. Costs (C) and public opinion (D) might matter for policy decisions, but they don't address whether the cameras actually work. Choice B seems relevant but actually undermines the argument. Remember: strengthening questions require evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. Look for concrete data, expert testimony, or logical support that directly backs up the reasoning, not tangential considerations about implementation or popularity.

Question 7

1. The bonus interest rate offered by the program is still lower than the rate the bank pays to borrow funds from other financial institutions. (correct answer)
2. Most of the bank's competitors already offer similar loyalty programs, though their versions impose higher minimum balance requirements.
3. Customers who keep large balances in checking accounts tend to make fewer debit-card purchases than do other customers.
4. Some existing customers may shift money from the bank's higher-yield savings accounts into their checking accounts to qualify for the bonus interest.

Explanation: This is a strengthen-the-argument question, which requires you to identify information that makes the bank's assertion more likely to be true. The bank claims its loyalty program will increase profits by attracting low-cost deposits to lend at higher rates. Choice A strengthens the argument by establishing that even with bonus interest, the bank's cost of funds remains favorable. If the bonus rate is still lower than what the bank pays to borrow from other institutions, this confirms that customer deposits—even with the bonus—represent a relatively cheap source of funding. This directly supports the "low-cost deposits" claim and makes the profit assertion more credible. Choice B is incorrect because it doesn't strengthen the profit argument. Knowing that competitors offer similar programs with higher minimums doesn't tell us whether this bank's program will actually be profitable—it just provides market context. Choice C weakens rather than strengthens the argument. If large-balance customers make fewer debit purchases, they generate less fee income for the bank, potentially offsetting the benefit of their deposits. Choice D significantly weakens the argument by suggesting the program might cannibalize existing higher-yield accounts. If customers simply move money from savings accounts that already pay the bank well, the bank isn't attracting new deposits—it's just paying more for money it already had. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, look for answer choices that directly support the causal relationship in the argument. Here, you needed evidence that the deposits would indeed be "low-cost" relative to alternatives, making the profit claim more believable.

Question 8

1. Companies that implemented similar wellness programs three years ago report an average 12 percent decline in employee medical claims since then. (correct answer)
2. Employees can choose to participate in the program during paid work hours or on their own time.
3. Some employees are concerned that the company may use health data gathered from the program to make personnel decisions.
4. The corporation's healthcare premiums are scheduled to rise 8 percent next year independent of any wellness efforts.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen" question in GMAT Critical Reasoning, you're looking for evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The corporation's prediction rests on a causal chain: wellness program → healthier employees → fewer medical claims → lower insurance costs. Answer choice A provides the strongest support because it offers concrete evidence that similar programs actually work. When companies with comparable wellness initiatives saw a 12% decline in medical claims over three years, this directly validates the corporation's reasoning. Past results from similar situations create a strong precedent for expecting the same outcome. Let's examine why the other choices fail to strengthen the argument: B) The timing flexibility of participation doesn't address whether the program will actually reduce claims. This is about logistics, not effectiveness. C) Employee concerns about data privacy actually weakens the argument by suggesting potential participation barriers that could limit the program's success. D) The scheduled 8% premium increase is irrelevant to whether the wellness program will reduce claims. This information about baseline cost increases doesn't support the causal relationship between wellness initiatives and fewer medical claims. Notice how A differs fundamentally from the others—it's the only choice that provides evidence the proposed cause-and-effect relationship has worked before. The other choices either ignore the causal mechanism entirely or potentially undermine it. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, prioritize answer choices that provide concrete evidence supporting the specific causal relationship in the argument. Historical precedent from similar situations is often the strongest form of support.

Question 9

1. In a country that adopted a similar tax, technology companies responded by entering into revenue-sharing agreements that increased local news outlets' income by 25 percent. (correct answer)
2. Some technology companies warn that any new tax on digital advertising will lead them to raise prices for advertisers.
3. Local news organizations already receive government subsidies in many regions, though these are expected to decline.
4. Digital advertising revenues have grown rapidly over the past decade, outpacing inflation and overall economic growth.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to find evidence that makes the economists' conclusion more likely to be true. The economists claim that a digital advertising tax will create revenue for local news by encouraging tech companies to share ad revenue with local outlets. Choice A provides the strongest support because it offers direct empirical evidence that this exact policy worked elsewhere. When a similar tax was implemented in another country, tech companies did exactly what the economists predict—they entered revenue-sharing agreements that boosted local news income by 25%. This precedent makes the economists' argument much more credible. Choice B actually weakens the argument by suggesting tech companies might respond negatively to the tax by raising advertiser prices, rather than sharing revenue with local outlets. Choice C is irrelevant to whether the proposed tax will work—existing subsidies that may decline don't tell us anything about how tech companies will respond to a new tax. Choice D shows that digital advertising is a growing market, but growth alone doesn't indicate whether companies will share that revenue when taxed; they might just absorb the cost or pass it to advertisers instead. The key trap here is confusing general context (like market growth in D) with specific evidence about the proposed mechanism. When strengthening policy arguments, look for examples where similar policies produced the predicted results—real-world precedent is usually stronger evidence than theoretical conditions or tangential information.

Question 10

1. When another airline implemented the window-to-aisle boarding method, its average boarding time fell from 35 minutes to 26 minutes per flight. (correct answer)
2. Some passengers prefer choosing their seats at the gate rather than when they purchase tickets online.
3. Airline staff have received only minimal training so far on how to manage the new boarding process efficiently.
4. Flights that depart late often do so because the arriving aircraft reached the gate behind schedule, not because of slow boarding.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen" question, you're looking for evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. Here, the airline claims their new window-to-aisle boarding process will reduce boarding time by at least 20 percent. Choice A provides the strongest support because it offers concrete evidence from a real-world implementation. When another airline used this exact method, boarding time dropped from 35 minutes to 26 minutes—that's a 26% reduction, which exceeds the claimed 20% improvement. This direct parallel demonstrates that the boarding method can indeed achieve the promised results. Choice B is irrelevant because passenger seat selection preferences don't relate to how efficiently the boarding process works once seats are assigned. Choice C actually weakens the claim by suggesting the airline isn't prepared to implement the process effectively—minimal staff training could lead to poor execution and slower boarding. Choice D shifts focus to a different cause of delays (late arriving aircraft) but doesn't address whether the new boarding method will work as claimed when implemented. The key trap here is confusing correlation with causation or missing the direct relevance test. Choice D mentions boarding delays but discusses a different root cause entirely, while Choice C introduces information that undermines rather than supports the claim. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, look for evidence that directly supports the specific claim being made. Real-world examples showing the proposed solution working elsewhere (like Choice A) are typically stronger than theoretical reasoning or tangential information.

Question 11

1. Members who used the insurer's limited existing telemedicine option visited ERs 40 percent less often for non-urgent issues than did similar members without telemedicine access. (correct answer)
2. Some physicians worry that telemedicine makes it harder to perform thorough physical examinations.
3. Many rural members of the insurance plan live more than 30 miles from the nearest hospital.
4. Telemedicine consultations typically last about 15 minutes, while in-person primary-care visits often last twice as long.

Explanation: This is a strengthen question testing your ability to identify evidence that supports a causal argument. The health insurer claims that expanding telemedicine coverage will reduce overall costs by preventing unnecessary ER visits. To strengthen this argument, you need evidence showing telemedicine actually does reduce ER usage. Choice A provides exactly this evidence. Real data showing that members with telemedicine access visited ERs 40% less often for non-urgent issues directly supports the insurer's prediction. This demonstrates the proposed mechanism works in practice - when people have telemedicine access, they use emergency rooms less frequently for non-urgent care, which would indeed lower costs. Choice B actually weakens the argument by highlighting a potential drawback of telemedicine - physicians' concerns about examination quality could suggest telemedicine isn't an adequate substitute for in-person care. Choice C, while explaining why telemedicine might be convenient for rural members, doesn't establish any connection to reduced ER visits or lower costs. Geographic distance alone doesn't prove the cost-reduction mechanism. Choice D compares consultation lengths but says nothing about ER usage patterns or overall costs. Shorter telemedicine visits might even suggest less thorough care rather than cost savings. Study tip: In strengthen questions, look for answer choices that provide concrete evidence supporting the specific causal relationship described in the argument. Avoid choices that merely provide context or mention related but irrelevant factors - you want direct proof the proposed mechanism actually works.

Question 12

1. Households participating in a pilot rebate program last year reduced their use of municipally supplied water for outdoor irrigation by an average of 35 percent. (correct answer)
2. Most of the region's annual rainfall occurs during three months of the year, with relatively little rain the rest of the time.
3. Installing a rainwater-collection system requires a municipal building permit that can take several weeks to obtain.
4. Other utilities in neighboring states offer higher rebates for similar equipment but have lower customer participation rates.

Explanation: When you encounter "strengthen" questions on the GMAT, you're looking for evidence that makes the given argument more likely to be true. Here, the utility company argues that rainwater-collection systems will achieve two specific benefits: lower household water bills and reduce strain on municipal supplies. Choice A provides concrete evidence that directly supports both claims. The 35% reduction in municipal water usage for outdoor irrigation demonstrates that rainwater collection actually works to reduce demand on city supplies. When households use less municipal water, their bills decrease and the strain on the system lessens. This is exactly the outcome the utility company predicts. Choice B about seasonal rainfall patterns doesn't strengthen the argument—if anything, it suggests potential limitations since rainwater would only be available during certain months. Choice C about permit delays introduces a potential obstacle that might discourage participation, which would weaken rather than strengthen the company's position. Choice D presents a puzzling contradiction (higher rebates but lower participation) that doesn't support the utility's rebate strategy and provides no evidence about whether the systems actually work. The key trap here is confusing information that's merely relevant with information that actually supports the conclusion. While choices B, C, and D relate to rainwater collection, only A provides measurable proof that the systems deliver the promised benefits. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, focus on evidence that directly supports the specific claims being made. Look for concrete data or examples that demonstrate the predicted outcome actually occurring.

Question 13

1. Field trials show that crops treated with the leading organic substitute produced harvests comparable in size and quality to those treated with the banned pesticide. (correct answer)
2. The cost of the organic alternatives is approximately 15 percent higher than that of the pesticide to be banned.
3. Some neighboring countries banned the pesticide five years ago but continue to import large quantities of food.
4. Consumer demand for organically grown produce has risen steadily over the past decade.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to find evidence that directly supports the conclusion being made. Here, agricultural officials claim that banning a pesticide won't lower crop yields because equally effective organic alternatives exist. The strongest support would be concrete evidence demonstrating that these organic alternatives actually work as well as claimed. Choice A provides exactly this: field trials showing comparable harvest size and quality between the organic substitute and the banned pesticide. This directly validates the officials' assertion that effective alternatives exist, making their conclusion much more credible. Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice B discusses cost differences, but higher prices don't tell us anything about effectiveness—expensive alternatives could still be ineffective. Choice C mentions neighboring countries that banned the pesticide and import food, but this actually suggests those countries might have experienced reduced yields, which would weaken rather than strengthen the officials' position. Choice D addresses consumer demand for organic produce, but demand trends don't prove that organic pesticides work as well as conventional ones. The key trap here is confusing relevant information with strengthening evidence. Cost (B), international examples (C), and market trends (D) might all be related to pesticide policy, but none directly support the specific claim about yield maintenance. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, look for answer choices that provide direct evidence for the conclusion's key assumption. Here, the assumption was that organic alternatives are "equally effective"—only choice A actually tests and confirms this assumption with empirical data.

Question 14

1. Property values rose by an average of 8 percent in neighborhoods of a neighboring city after similar protected lanes were installed there two years ago. (correct answer)
2. Local business owners worry that removing on-street parking to make room for bike lanes will reduce customer traffic.
3. Most current Main Street residents already commute by public transit rather than by bicycle or car.
4. The proposed lanes will connect Main Street to an existing network of recreational bike paths on the city's outskirts.

Explanation: This is a strengthen-the-argument question, where you need to find evidence that directly supports the council's claim that protected bike lanes will raise property values through attracting young professionals. Choice A provides the strongest support because it offers concrete, relevant evidence: an 8% property value increase in similar circumstances. This directly parallels the council's situation and demonstrates that protected bike lanes have actually produced the predicted outcome elsewhere. The evidence is both specific (8% increase) and contextually relevant (neighboring city with similar lanes). Let's examine why the other choices don't strengthen the argument as effectively. Choice B actually weakens the council's position by presenting a counterargument—business owners' concerns about reduced customer traffic could negatively impact property values rather than raise them. Choice C is irrelevant to the council's reasoning; knowing that current residents use public transit doesn't tell us whether bike lanes will attract the new young professionals the council is targeting. Choice D might seem supportive, but connecting to recreational paths doesn't directly support the claim about attracting car-free commuting professionals—recreational cycling and commuter cycling serve different purposes. When tackling strengthen questions on the GMAT, look for answer choices that provide direct evidence supporting the conclusion, preferably with concrete data or parallel examples. Be wary of choices that introduce irrelevant information, present counterarguments, or address different aspects of the topic than what the argument specifically claims.

Question 15

1. During a month-long pilot, customers who activated a digital loyalty card visited the shop 30 percent more often than did comparable customers who had not activated a card. (correct answer)
2. Customers often forget to bring traditional paper punch cards, which the chain currently offers for free drinks.
3. Competitors in the same neighborhoods already provide mobile ordering and delivery services.
4. Developing the app that supports the digital loyalty cards required significant up-front investment from the chain.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to find evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The coffee chain concludes that digital loyalty cards will increase customer retention, so look for data showing these cards actually work. Choice A provides direct evidence supporting the argument. A 30% increase in visit frequency during the pilot program demonstrates that digital loyalty cards do indeed affect customer behavior in the desired way. This empirical data from a real-world test directly supports the chain's prediction about customer retention. Choice B identifies a problem with current paper cards but doesn't prove digital cards will solve the retention issue. Even if customers forget paper cards, digital cards might fail for entirely different reasons. Choice C about competitors offering mobile services is irrelevant to whether loyalty cards specifically increase retention—it's addressing a different competitive concern altogether. Choice D actually weakens the argument by highlighting costs without showing benefits, making the digital card initiative seem less attractive from a business perspective. The key trap here is confusing relevant context with actual evidence. Choices B and C provide background information that seems related to the topic, but neither demonstrates that digital loyalty cards achieve the stated goal of increasing customer retention. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, prioritize concrete evidence over general context. Look for data, studies, or specific examples that directly support the conclusion rather than information that merely relates to the topic.

Question 16

1. When the university last increased scholarship amounts four years ago, its yield rate—the percentage of admitted students who enrolled—rose by seven percentage points. (correct answer)
2. Peer institutions with similarly high tuition levels offer need-based aid packages that are, on average, 10 percent larger.
3. The university's endowment earnings have grown steadily over the past decade, providing funds for additional scholarships.
4. Some admitted students choose to attend less expensive public universities even when those institutions offer minimal financial aid.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen" question, you need to find evidence that makes the given conclusion more likely to be true. The university claims that increasing need-based scholarships will boost enrollment rates among admitted students. Choice A provides the strongest support because it offers direct, relevant precedent. When this same university previously increased scholarship amounts, enrollment rates actually rose by seven percentage points. This historical evidence suggests the university's strategy has worked before and strengthens the likelihood it will work again. Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice B tells us that peer institutions offer larger aid packages, but this actually weakens the university's position by suggesting competitors might still have an advantage even after increases. Choice C discusses the university's ability to fund more scholarships through endowment growth, but having the money doesn't prove that spending it on scholarships will increase enrollment—it's about capability, not effectiveness. Choice D mentions that some students choose cheaper public schools despite minimal aid, but this doesn't help us understand whether increased need-based aid would change enrollment decisions. The key distinction is that A provides concrete evidence of cause and effect specifically related to this university's scholarship increases, while the other choices either work against the argument or discuss tangential issues like funding sources or competitor behavior. Strategy tip: In strengthen questions, prioritize evidence that shows the proposed cause actually producing the predicted effect, especially when it comes from the same context or organization making the claim.

Question 17

1. Smart-charging systems that automatically delay charging until after midnight are included in nearly all new EV models sold domestically. (correct answer)
2. The utility has recently invested in several large solar farms that generate electricity primarily during daylight hours.
3. The cost of home EV charging equipment has decreased significantly over the past five years.
4. Peak electricity demand typically occurs on hot summer afternoons, when air-conditioning usage is highest.

Explanation: This is a strengthen question asking you to identify evidence that supports the utility company's claim that the power grid will remain stable despite increased EV adoption, because most owners charge overnight when demand is low. The utility's argument hinges on the timing assumption that EV charging will occur during off-peak hours. For this to work, there must be a mechanism ensuring EVs actually charge at night rather than whenever owners plug them in. Answer choice A provides exactly this mechanism: smart-charging systems that automatically delay charging until after midnight are standard in nearly all new EVs. This technology directly supports the utility's position by guaranteeing that charging happens during low-demand periods, regardless of when owners plug in their vehicles. Looking at the wrong answers: B actually weakens the utility's position because solar farms generate power during the day when EVs aren't typically charging, creating a timing mismatch. C about decreasing equipment costs is irrelevant to grid stability and charging timing. D identifies when peak demand occurs but doesn't strengthen the claim that EV charging will avoid these peak periods. The key trap here is confusing information that's merely related to the topic with information that actually strengthens the specific argument. Solar power generation (B) and peak demand timing (D) are relevant to electricity grids generally, but they don't support the utility's particular claim about overnight charging patterns. On GMAT strengthen questions, look for answer choices that directly address the logical gap or assumption in the argument, not just tangentially related facts.

Question 18

1. The cost of raw materials used by the firm has risen steadily over the past five years and now accounts for more than half of total production costs. (correct answer)
2. Many workers at competing firms already receive company-sponsored training and seldom leave their jobs.
3. The firm recently invested in new machinery that allows production workers to correct errors more easily than before.
4. Exit interviews indicate that most workers who quit the firm do so because of the physically demanding nature of the job.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to identify the core reasoning and find what makes that logic more compelling. Here, management argues that a $3 million training program will pay for itself in two years because 20% fewer mistakes means less waste of raw materials. The key insight is that this argument depends on raw material waste being a significant cost. If raw materials represent a tiny fraction of expenses, then even a 20% reduction in waste wouldn't generate substantial savings. But if raw materials are a major cost driver, then reducing waste becomes financially meaningful. Choice A strengthens the argument perfectly by establishing that raw materials account for "more than half of total production costs" and have been "rising steadily." This makes waste reduction highly valuable financially, supporting management's claim that the savings will justify the $3 million investment. Choice B about competing firms' training programs and retention rates doesn't address whether waste reduction will generate sufficient cost savings. Choice C actually weakens the argument—if new machinery already helps workers correct errors easily, the additional benefit from training becomes questionable. Choice D focuses on why workers quit (physical demands) rather than the financial impact of reducing material waste. Remember that strengthen questions require you to support the specific logical connection being made. Don't get distracted by answer choices that seem generally positive but don't reinforce the precise reasoning. Focus on what assumption or gap exists in the argument, then find the choice that fills that gap most directly.

Question 19

1. Hospitals charge patients an average of $2,000 per day for inpatient care related to the targeted viral infection. (correct answer)
2. Many physicians remain skeptical about the new medication's safety because its long-term side effects are still unknown.
3. Insurance companies typically reimburse 80 percent of drug costs but only 50 percent of hospital-stay costs for this infection.
4. Patients using the older drug often supplement their treatment with inexpensive over-the-counter remedies that shorten recovery by one to two days.

Explanation: When you encounter a "strengthen the argument" question, you need to identify what would make the conclusion more likely to be true. Here, the pharmaceutical company argues that despite costing twice as much, their new drug will reduce overall healthcare costs because it shortens recovery time by a week, avoiding expensive hospital stays. The correct answer is A because it provides crucial cost information that directly supports the economic argument. If hospitals charge $2,000 per day and the new drug saves a full week (7 days), that's $14,000 in avoided hospital costs. Even if the new drug costs significantly more than the old one, this hospital savings would likely exceed the additional drug cost, strengthening the company's claim about reducing overall healthcare costs. Answer B actually weakens the argument by introducing safety concerns that could undermine adoption of the new medication. Answer C is irrelevant to the core argument about total cost reduction—insurance reimbursement percentages don't change the actual costs incurred. Answer D weakens the argument by suggesting the recovery time gap between old and new drugs might be smaller than claimed, since over-the-counter supplements can shorten recovery with the older drug by 1-2 days. For strengthen/weaken questions, focus on what directly impacts the logical connection between premises and conclusion. Here, you needed concrete cost data to evaluate whether shorter recovery time actually translates to overall savings. Always look for answer choices that provide missing pieces of the economic or logical puzzle rather than tangential information.