Quick CR 10 2x

Skip to content

Pre-Tutoring
Quant
Verbal
OG10/20/Adv
GPT
GMAT Prep
Review Packs
HW FAQ
GMAT Quant Review Quizzes
Targeted Basic Quant
Official Practice Q’s
OGDiag (Verbal = 29min, Quant = 20min)
Home
Site Access Issues (solutions)
*LOGIN*

Home
Quick CR 10 2x

Time limit: 0

Quiz Summary

0 of 5 Questions completed

Questions:

Information

You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.

Quiz is loading…

You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.

You must first complete the following:

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Results

0 of 5 Questions answered correctly

Your time:

Time has elapsed

You have reached 0 of 0 point(s), (0)

Earned Point(s): 0 of 0, (0)
0 Essay(s) Pending (Possible Point(s): 0)

Average score
Your score

Categories

Critical Reasoning 0%

Review these reasoning quizzes right after you do them. For anything that you’re not 100% on google the first bunch of words of the question and seek out explanations online. If after spending some time reviewing you’re still having a tough time then bring the question to QA or to your next tutoring session. Really fight to understand the logic of these questions. Remember: 1 is correct 4 are incorrect. Really push yourself to be black and white with correct v. incorrect. It is extremely rare that two answer choices are technically OK but one is stronger. It can happen but we’re talking 1% of the time. So, with that in mind let’s have the mindset that it never happens and that we need to be binary: 1 correct. 4 incorrect. That mindset is key to improvement.

1
2
3
4
5

Current
Review
Answered
Correct
Incorrect

Question 1 of 5
1. Question
The probability of avoiding heart disease is increased if one avoids fat in one’s diet. Furthermore, one is less likely to eat fat if one avoids eating dairy foods. Thus the probability of maintaining good health is increased by avoiding dairy foods.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
- (A) The argument ignores the possibility that, even though a practice may have potentially negative consequences, its elimination may also have negative consequences.
- (B) The argument fails to consider the possibility that there are more ways than one of decreasing the risk of a certain type of occurrence.
- (C) The argument presumes, without providing justification, that factors that carry increased risks of negative consequences ought to be eliminated.
- (D) The argument fails to show that the evidence appealed to is relevant to the conclusion asserted.
- (E) The argument fails to consider that what is probable will not necessarily occur.
Correct
Incorrect
Question 2 of 5
2. Question
Professor: One cannot frame an accurate conception of one’s physical environment on the basis of a single momentary perception, since each such glimpse occurs from only one particular perspective. Similarly, any history book gives only a distorted view of the past, since it reflects the biases and prejudices of its author.
The professor’s argument proceeds by
- (A) attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably flawed, piece of reasoning
- (B) developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false, absurd consequences would follow
- (C) making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument’s resemblance to another, presumably cogent, argument
- (D) arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another, closely related, characteristic
- (E) arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to be unreliable under similar circumstances
Correct
Incorrect
Question 3 of 5
3. Question
To date, most of the proposals that have been endorsed by the Citizens League have been passed by the city council. Thus, any future proposal that is endorsed by the Citizens League will probably be passed as well.
The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?
- (A) Most of the Vasani grants that have been awarded in previous years have gone to academic biologists. Thus, if most of the Vasani grants awarded next year are awarded to academics, most of these will probably be biologists.
- (B) Most of the individual trees growing on the coastal islands in this area are deciduous. Therefore, most of the tree species on these islands are probably deciduous varieties.
- (C) Most of the editors who have worked for the local newspaper have not been sympathetic to local farmers. Thus, if the newspaper hires someone who is sympathetic to local farmers, they will probably not be hired as an editor.
- (D) Most of the entries that were received after the deadline for last year’s photography contest were rejected by the judges’ committee. Thus, the people whose entries were received after the deadline last year will probably send them in well before the deadline this year.
- (E) Most of the stone artifacts that have been found at the archaeological site have been domestic tools. Thus, if the next artifact found at the site is made of stone, it will probably be a domestic tool.
Correct
Incorrect
Question 4 of 5
4. Question
Chemist: The molecules of a certain weed-killer are always present in two forms, one the mirror image of the other. One form of the molecule kills weeds, while the other has no effect on them. As a result, the effectiveness of the weed-killer in a given situation is heavily influenced by which of the two forms is more concentrated in the soil, which in turn varies widely because local soil conditions will usually favor the breakdown of one form or the other. Thus, much of the data on the effects of this weed-killer are probably misleading.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the chemist’s argument?
- (A) In general, if the molecules of a weed-killer are always present in two forms, then it is likely that weeds are killed by one of those two forms but unaffected by the other.
- (B) Almost all of the data on the effects of the weed-killer are drawn from laboratory studies in which both forms of the weed-killer’s molecules are equally concentrated in the soil and equally likely to break down in that soil.
- (C) Of the two forms of the weed-killer’s molecules, the one that kills weeds is found in most local soil conditions to be the more concentrated form.
- (D) The data on the effects of the weed-killer are drawn from studies of the weed-killer under a variety of soil conditions similar to those in which the weed-killer is normally applied.
- (E) Data on the weed-killer’s effects that rely solely on the examination of the effects of only one of the two forms of the weed-killer’s molecules will almost certainly be misleading.
Correct
Incorrect
Question 5 of 5
5. Question
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise; an officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone’s life.
Conclusion: Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should not.
From which one of the following sets of facts can the conclusion be properly drawn using the principle?
- (A) In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
- (B) Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, and each officer saved a child from drowning earlier this year. However, in doing so, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer; Penn did not.
- (C) Neither Franklin nor Penn has an exemplary record. But, in saving the life of an accident victim, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. In the only case in which Penn saved someone’s life this year, Penn was merely doing what could be reasonably expected of an officer under the circumstances.
- (D) At least once this year, Franklin has saved a person’s life in such a way as to exceed what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Penn has not saved anyone’s life this year.
- (E) Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records. On several occasions this year Franklin has saved people’s lives, and on many occasions this year Franklin has exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. On no occasions this year has Penn saved a person’s life or exceeded what could be reasonably expected of an officer.
Correct
Incorrect

Pre-Tutoring
Quant
Verbal
OG10/20/Adv
GPT
GMAT Prep
Review Packs
HW FAQ
GMAT Quant Review Quizzes
Targeted Basic Quant
Official Practice Q’s
OGDiag (Verbal = 29min, Quant = 20min)
Home
Site Access Issues (solutions)
*LOGIN*

Quick CR 10 2x

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question