Solving some GRE Critical Reasoning Problems: Part 1

today someone on the YouTube channel requested that we do some critical reasoning problems and I don't want to waste the current critical reasoning problems from the GRE so what we're gonna do is we're gonna work from the old GRE which thankfully had a lot of critical reasoning problems so the current version of the GRE you have 40 verbal questions maybe three or four of those or critical reasoning on the old GRE you have something like I don't know six to ten you you have a lot of them so that's good news so we can get a lot of practice however not every critical reasoning question on the old GRE pertains to the new GRE some of the questions are a little bit different so what I did is I just included the ones that kind of matched the tone and similarity of the current GRE so in this video we're gonna work through those this is from the first test of the old GRE and whenever I do a critical reasoning question there's a couple things so we have this kind of process known as the C e LJ process and this is you identify the conclusion you identify the evidence and you make a logical jump another thing is you can read the question beforehand if you want to because that's what the logical jump depends on and then finally you want to try to answer this question before looking at the answer choices because the answer choices are just gonna mess you up they're just kind of you know they're gonna ruin your day alright so here we go so when I read this I'm looking for the conclusion and the evidence it says a worldwide ban on the production of certain ozone-destroying chemicals would provide only an illusion of protection that looks like the conclusion but you know you have to keep reading these because sometimes there's even a clearer conclusion quantities of such chemicals already produced exist as coolants and millions of refrigerators when they reach the ozone layer in the atmosphere their action cannot be halted so there is no way this this is the conclusion notice how absolute it is there is no way to prevent these chemicals from damaging the ozone further so the conclusion as follows it's impossible no way right to stop the damage from these chemicals and the evidence is there saying there's a lot of these chemicals in refrigerators and the thing about the GRE you know I could say well wait a minute if there's a lot of chemicals in the refrigerator's and then the chemicals leave the refrigerator's maybe there's some way we can stop it maybe we can kind of pull it out of the air but you'll notice sometimes the GRE argument shuts that down like for example right here when they reach the ozone layer their action cannot be halted so notice I cannot use that to weaken this conclusion because they said I can't you know it's already established I can't pull this stuff out of the atmosphere so that means I have to come up with a different logical jump and what are they asking me to do they're asking me to weaken it well okay maybe it's true that once it reaches the air I can't pull the chemicals out but I can always stop it from reaching the air that's probably the answer so it says here these chemicals exist in refrigerators right once these chemicals get in the air I'm screwed but I can stop them from getting in the air you know maybe I can when a refrigerators old I can you know take it out of the refrigerator for example so that's probably the answer right there and that really weakens the conclusion that says it's impossible to stop because it is possible to stop if I can remove it from the refrigerator before it reaches the air all right so let's start at the bottom the coolants in refrigerators can be fully recovered at the end of the useful life well that's what I just said that's probably the answer skip even if people should give up the use of refrigerators the coolants already an existing refrigerators are a threat so that doesn't seem like it weakens that almost seems like it supports replacement chemicals that will not destroy ozone have not yet been so that looks like it supports if they have not yet been developed and I'm kind of in trouble in modern societies refrigeration of food is necessary that's just completely off topic has nothing to do with the ozone layer it is impossible to measure with accuracy the quantity of ozone destroying chemicals that exists as coolants in refrigerator so even if I can't measure with accuracy that doesn't mean they do no damage so notice they put this first so this to me seems like the trap answer that seems like the trap answer but just because I can't measure with accuracy doesn't mean a damn thing I mean these things can still get up in the ozone layer and cause lots of trouble so the correct answer is what I predicted II right there and again notice my process here I identified the conclusion I identified the evidence I made a logical jump my logical jump was made without looking at the answer choices which are they're just too corrupt in my mind so keep that in the back of your brain when you're doing these critical reasoning questions alright let's look at another one here the next one says a recent study of an insurance company's underwriters indicated that those who worked in pleasant physical surroundings were 25% more productive than their peers in unpleasant physical surroundings objective criteria for evaluating job performance included caseload and complexity of cases so again what the GRE is doing there is they're kind of throwing out this possible challenge you know maybe I would say hey wait a minute maybe you studied it in a non scientific manner maybe you were a subjective you were biased and then you could point to the argument say no we weren't you look right there we were objective which means it must be another reason this shows that improving workers environments increases those workers Pro to productivity so the conclusion is this cause effect relationship so cause and effect the cause is this okay if you improve the environment of a worker the productivity goes up notice the improvement of the environment must come first and the evidence is this data right here you know people with Pleasant work surroundings they had 25% more productivity and what are they asking me to do are they asking me to support this or weaken this they're asking me to weaken it there's a couple ways I can weaken this I can introduce a different cause which causes higher productivity but the best weakening thing is I basically negate the cause and effect relationship I say no no no no no no no cause improving the environment was not first people who have higher productivity maybe they have the better work environment so take this here's what I'm showing the employees who work better okay maybe they are more likely to decorate their environment or try to improve their environment so notice I put the productive cause I put the productivity increase in productivity as the cause and then the effect is the environment improves so basically I flipped it I flipped it and then do in so doing I weaken the argument now what else I mean maybe the people who are more productive maybe they give them the corner office they get the nicer place they get the bigger desk the bigger office so maybe for example you know the better environment is used as an award or a reward for people who are more productive at work so again the key idea here is I flipped the cause and effect relationship all right so let's see what we got peer pressure what what the hell are you talking about peer pressure look at that more productive employees do not work anymore no that has nothing to do with environment the more productive employees are generally rewarded with Pleasant office space that's exactly what I said let's skip that unpleasant surroundings give employees less motivation to work hard than more pleasant surroundings this supports the conclusion it doesn't weaken it on average less productive employees spend no fewer hours per day this has nothing to do with environment correct answer is going to be see ETS is like a math problem which means if you're good at this you can almost not a hundred percent of the time but maybe 75% of the time guess the answer without even look adding looking at them because these are almost like math problems all right let's go ahead and look at one more ok so this will be the last one we do in this video so it says in a certain country individuals tend to change their political affiliation readily from one party to another so they jump around Democrat Republican Democrat Republican in the past the Union party grew larger because of this tendency but although most of those who change to a new party affiliation change to the Union party the Union party has remained about the same so I can already tell that this is one of these paradox questions and these paradox questions basically they give you two pieces of information and it just doesn't make sense so piece number one is that most people who change their party today oops who change change to the Union party that's the first piece ok and then here comes the paradox if that's true shouldn't the Union party be growing larger right it says this the numbers are constant it's the paradox okay the size is the same alright so how can we make sense of this so they're trying to kind of tell us to make sense of this which of the following if true best helps to explain the change in the growth pattern of the Union party mentioned above all right so I mean we could even just draw a picture so you got ten people okay so we got ten people here let's imagine that currently these five are union members okay and then these five are changing their party now the the passage tells us most of them change to the Union party so let's say three of them change to Union so Union Union and finally Union okay so here we go if these three change to Union the expectation is that we would get plus three right and it would turn into eight but they said this didn't happened so what that means is three of these guys who are currently in the party they must be basically going away from the Union party so when these three people leave bye-bye three more people come in three more people come in like that now the question is are they changing to a different party or maybe are they just giving up on politics I think right now though we have enough information to start looking at the answer choices okay so these three people change and then three people drop out which means the numbers stay constant alright so here we go many members of the union party have abandoned all political party affiliation in recent years again that's kind of what I said if they abandon it that means they drop out which means if new people come in the numbers stay constant so e actually looks pretty good and let's skip that the percentage of voting age citizens who are affiliated with any political party has increased over the last ten years okay if this percentage has increased okay that means that I would expect the Union Party to have more members but I would also expect other parties to have more members as well the main problem with this one is it's just not focused enough on the Union Party it's just a little bit too general so for example maybe all of these voting-age citizens went to the Union Party in which case that wouldn't explain the contradiction but maybe they went to the other party which would explain the contradiction but I don't have any strong evidence that one or the other of those events occurred it's just not on topic enough right so notice what I think is the correct answer II it uses very specifically this idea of the Union Party which is what the entire passage is about this one here just says the percentage of voting age citizens who are affiliated with any political party has increased over the last 10 years so yeah maybe we're talking about more people here but are we talking about the Union Party or we're talking about other parties you know these voting-age citizens maybe they're very young maybe they're not affiliated with the Union Party there's just not enough information it's just too general it just doesn't hit the mark with this idea of the Union very very good trap answer here a very good one and I'm pretty impressed with what ETS has done here the percentage of voting age citizens who change political party affiliation each year has remained constant and the number of voting age citizens well if everything has stayed the same than in the past right the Union Party grew larger I would expect that to continue so that's wrong that doesn't explain the contradiction in recent years those who were previously non-affiliated have tended to well that means the Union Party should be getting larger so that doesn't make any sense the economy has been prospering recently that has nothing to do with the Union Party or changing parties or you know anything like that mobile and prosperous you know they're talking they're bringing money into this and the passage is not related to money at all so the correct answer is going to be e all right guys that is our critical reasoning practice from the old GRE if you guys want to practice more critical reasoning go ahead take a look at the old GRE there's a lot of questions in there remember the process the process is C e LJ conclusion evidence logical jump and try to make a good guess about the answer before looking at the choices alright until next time bye

10 thoughts on “Solving some GRE Critical Reasoning Problems: Part 1”

  1. Hey
    I have a question.
    You mentioned that in the new ger we will have only 3,4 q CR?
    You wanna say for all verbal section??

  2. 3/3 Half happy 😊 because I paused the video and I took my time to reason out those questions. When taking the GRE, I won’t be able to do that—no good⏰⏳

    Why do they time the GRE? I don’t think they should measure people’s reasoning based on how fast they can think. Some individuals are not as fast as others (I am very fast physically but not mentally) I need time 📠

  3. I find these cr quesrions in old gre much easier than the current ones. I find they are less challenging to me in terms of difficulty. I don't know how you guyz see them. Plz drop your comments.
    Thank you all.

  4. Thank you for video, I have learned new technique. I am trying to improve my reading comprehension and your methods help me lot.

  5. Thank you Greg. I love watching your videos. I wish you keeping doing multiple questions like 3 or 4 per video.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *