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 regional bakery chain emailed a satisfaction survey to every customer enrolled in its loyalty program. Of the customers who returned the survey, 88 percent rated their most recent visit as excellent, well above the 60 percent figure that an industry group reports as typical for comparable chains. The chain's operations manager concluded that, on the whole, the chain's loyalty members are considerably more satisfied than the customers of competing chains. The manager's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

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

This is a describe-the-flaw question, so the credited choice must name the specific invalid move the argument actually makes, while each wrong choice names a real flaw type the argument does not commit. Map the argument first. Premise: 88 percent of the customers who returned the survey rated their visit excellent. Conclusion: the chain's loyalty members, on the whole, are more satisfied than competitors' customers. The hidden leap is from the people who chose to respond to all loyalty members. People who bother to return a satisfaction survey tend to have stronger opinions than those who ignore it, so the responding subgroup need not reflect the silent majority. The argument generalizes from a self-selected sample to the whole population, which is exactly what (A) describes. The rule that decides it: a flaw choice is credited only if it names a move the argument actually makes. (A) is correct.

Why each distractor is a plausible but wrong path: (B) names circular reasoning. The argument is not circular, because the evidence (a survey rating) is a different statement from the conclusion (a comparison with competitors); nothing in the premises simply restates the conclusion. (C) names equivocation, a shift in the meaning of a key term. The argument uses 'satisfied' and 'excellent' loosely, but its failure is about who was measured, not about a word changing meaning between premise and conclusion. (D) is the most tempting trap: it names a genuine comparison-validity problem, and the argument really does invoke the 60 percent benchmark. But the conclusion would still be unsupported even if the benchmark were measured identically, because the deeper gap is that the respondents may not represent all members. The benchmark issue is a real flaw type, just not the one this argument turns on. (E) names mistaking absence of evidence for evidence. The premises give positive excellent ratings, not merely a lack of complaints, so the argument does not commit this error. Test each candidate the same way: only (A) names a move the argument actually makes.