PrepLattice
Sign in
VerbalCritical Reasoning

Free GMAT Critical Reasoning Practice Question

PrepLattice is an independent test-preparation service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by GMAC, the organization that administers the GMAT. GMAT and GMAT Focus are trademarks of GMAC, used here only to name the exam this question is designed to prepare you for.

A management consultant argued that Marwick Grocers should install self-checkout kiosks in all 40 of its stores. The consultant's recommendation rests on a three-month pilot at Marwick's downtown flagship store, where the kiosks reduced cashier-staffing costs by 22 percent. But the downtown flagship serves mostly young commuters buying a few items, whereas most Marwick stores serve families making large weekly purchases. Shoppers with full carts take much longer at self-checkout kiosks than at staffed lanes, and they frequently require an employee's help. Therefore, the consultant's projection of chain-wide savings is unlikely to be realized.

In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

Five fresh questions every day, your progress tracked, every miss explained. Free with an account.

Start Today's Free Set

Answer & Explanation

Correct answer

A

For a boldface role question, first locate the main conclusion, then classify each boldface portion by its function relative to that conclusion. The main conclusion is the final, unbolded sentence: the consultant's projection of chain-wide savings is unlikely to be realized. So the argument's own position is that the recommendation will fail.

First boldface: the pilot result showing a 22 percent staffing-cost reduction. This is the evidence the consultant uses to back the recommendation, and the recommendation is exactly what this argument goes on to dispute. So the first portion is evidence supporting a position the argument opposes.

Second boldface: the observation that full-cart shoppers are slower and need employee help at kiosks. This is the evidence the argument itself offers, and it points toward the conclusion that chain-wide savings will not materialize. So the second portion supports the argument's own conclusion. That is exactly what (A) says, so (A) is credited.

(B) flips the direction of both portions: it claims the argument endorses the recommendation (it disputes it) and that the second portion is an objection the argument rejects (the argument actually relies on it). (C) swaps the two roles, giving the first portion the second's job and the second the first's; it is surface-parallel to (A) but reverses the support directions. (D) calls the first portion the main conclusion, but the conclusion is the unbolded final sentence, and the first portion is evidence. (E) labels the first portion correctly enough but calls the second portion the main conclusion, when the second portion is supporting evidence; the conclusion is again the unbolded sentence.