# Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: The Tricky Critical Reasoning Conclusion

As discussed previously, the most important aspect of a strengthen/weaken question on the GMAT is “identifying the conclusion,” but sometimes, that may not be enough. Even after you identify the conclusion, you must ensure that you have understood it well. Today, we will discuss the “tricky conclusions.”

First let’s take a look at some simple examples:

Conclusion 1: A Causes B.

We can strengthen the conclusion by saying that when A happens, B happens.

We can weaken the conclusion by saying that A happened but B did not happen.

How about a statement which suggests that “C causes B,” or, “B happened but A did not happen”?

Do these affect the conclusion? No, they don’t. The relationship here is that A causes B. Whether there are other factors that cause B too is not our concern, so whether B can happen without A is none of our business.

Conclusion 2: Only A Causes B.

This is an altogether different conclusion. It is apparent that A causes B but the point of contention is whether A is the only cause of B.

Now here, a statement suggesting, “C causes B,” or, “B happened but A did not happen,” does affect our conclusion. These weaken our conclusion – they suggest that A is not the only cause of B.

This distinction can be critical in solving the question. We will now illustrate this point with one of our own GMAT practice questions:

Two types of earthworm, one black and one red-brown, inhabit the woods near the town of Millerton. Because the red-brown worm’s coloring affords it better camouflage from predatory birds, its population in 1980 was approximately five times that of the black worm. In 1990, a factory was built in Millerton and emissions from the factory blackened much of the woods. The population of black earthworms is now almost equal to that of the red-brown earthworm, a result, say local ecologists, solely stemming from the blackening of the woods.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion of the local ecologists?

(A) The number of red-brown earthworms in the Millerton woods has steadily dropped since the factory began operations.

(B) The birds that prey on earthworms prefer black worms to red-brown worms.

(C) Climate conditions since 1990 have been more favorable to the survival of the red-brown worm than to the black worm.

(D) The average life span of the earthworms has remained the same since the factory began operations.

(E) Since the factory took steps to reduce emissions six months ago, there has been a slight increase in the earthworm population.

Let’s look at the argument.

Premises:

• There are two types of worms – Red and Black.
• Red has better camouflage from predatory birds, hence its population was five times that of black.
• The factory has blackened the woods and now the population of both worms is the same.

Conclusion:

From our premises, we can determine that the blackening of the woods is solely responsible for equalization of the population of the two earthworms.

We need to strengthen this conclusion. Note that there is no doubt that the blackening of the woods is responsible for equalization of populations; the question is whether it is solely responsible.

(A) The number of red-brown earthworms in the Millerton woods has steadily dropped since the factory began operations.

Our conclusion is that only the blackening of the woods caused the numbers to equalize (either black worms are able to hide better or red worms are not able to hide or both), therefore, we need to look for the option that strengthens that there is no other reason. Option A only tells us what the argument does anyway – the population of red worms is decreasing (or black worm population is increasing or both) due to the blackening of the woods. It doesn’t strengthen the claim that only blackening of the woods is responsible.

(B) The birds that prey on earthworms prefer black worms to red-brown worms.

The fact that birds prefer black worms doesn’t necessarily mean that they get to actually eat black worms. Even if we do assume that they do eat black worms over red worms when they can, this strengthens the idea that “the blackening of the woods is responsible for equalization of population,” but does not strengthen the idea that “the blackening of the woods is solely responsible for equalization,” hence, this is not our answer.

(C) Climate conditions since 1990 have been more favorable to the survival of the red-brown worm than to the black worm.

Option C tells us that another factor that could have had an effect on equalization (i.e. climate) is not responsible. This strengthens the conclusion that better camouflage is solely responsible – it doesn’t prove the conclusion beyond doubt, since there could be still another factor that could be responsible, but it does discard one of the other factors. Therefore, it does improve the probability that the conclusion is true.

(D) The average life span of the earthworms has remained the same since the factory began operations.

This option does not distinguish between the two types of earthworms. It just tells us that as a group, the average lifespan of the earthworms has remained the same. Hence, it doesn’t affect our conclusion, which is based on the population of two different earthworms.

(E) Since the factory took steps to reduce emissions six months ago, there has been a slight increase in the earthworm population.

Again, this option does not distinguish between the two types of earthworms. It just tells us that as a group, the earthworm population has increased, so it also does not affect our conclusion, which is based on the population of two different earthworms.