Data InsightsTwo-Part Analysis

Free GMAT Two-Part Analysis 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 tool-lending cooperative's organizer argues: "We track which tools get borrowed. The cordless drill was borrowed 200 times last year, more than any other tool, while the tile cutter was borrowed only 4 times. To get the most value from our limited purchase budget this year, we should spend it buying several more cordless drills and stop stocking the tile cutter."

Select Conclusion for the organizer's main recommendation, and select Assumption for the statement the argument must assume. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Conclusion (the organizer's main recommendation): . Assumption (what the argument must assume): .

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

Start Today's Free Set

Answer & Explanation

Correct answer

1: The cooperative should buy more cordless drills and stop stocking the tile cutter. · 2: A second cordless drill would be borrowed often enough to add more value than keeping the tile cutter, even though one drill already covers most drill requests.

The conclusion is the recommendation itself: buy more cordless drills and stop stocking the tile cutter. The argument moves from "the drill was borrowed most and the cutter least" to "buy more drills." The hidden assumption is about marginal value: an additional drill must add more value than the tile cutter provides, even though one drill may already satisfy most drill requests. The statement that a second cordless drill would be borrowed often enough to add more value than keeping the tile cutter states exactly that marginal-value assumption. If it were false, so that a single drill already covers nearly all drill demand and a second drill would sit idle, then buying more drills would be wasteful and the recommendation collapses, even though the drill is the most popular single tool.

This item wires both a fast-commit trap and an over-analysis trap. The statement that the cordless drill is more popular than the tile cutter feels like the assumption but merely restates the premise (the borrow counts); popularity is given, and the argument needs more than popularity, it needs the marginal value of an additional unit, so a skimmer who equates "most-borrowed" with "buy more" selects it. The statement that borrowers valued the drill more per use is a sophisticated value-intensity claim, but the argument does not require comparing per-use intensity; it requires that an additional drill be borrowed enough (the marginal-demand point), regardless of how intensely each borrower valued the tool, so that statement engages a dimension the argument does not depend on. The raw borrow counts are given, not assumed. The statement that tools wear out and must be replaced is a real consideration but irrelevant to the buy-more-drills-versus-drop-the-cutter recommendation as argued. The whole item turns on recognizing that "most-borrowed tool" does not imply "a marginal unit adds the most value," which is the gap the marginal-value assumption bridges.