"Strengthens" CR Questions (Part 2)
In Part 1, we covered the basics of the Visualization Approach within GMAT Pills Table-top Framework. By following the GMAT Pill 3-Step approach we used a methodical, structured approach for strengthening an argument. Here in Part 2, we'll apply one of GMATPill's 10 CR Frameworks to a CR question to help you speed up your response time and increase accuracy.
Recall, again, that Strengthens questions are the most popular type of CR question on the GMAT. Here is a summary of GMAT Pills analysis of OG13s 124 CR questions:
30% General Strengthen
20% Weaken
12% Helps Explain
10% Bold / Identify Structure of Argument
10% Evaluate the Argument
10% Argument Depends
8% Inference
Strengthens questions include all the bolded sections above: 30% General Strengthens, 12% Helps Explain, and 10% Argument Depends.
Together, thats 30% + 12% + 10% = 52% of CR.
While we categorize these questions as 3 separate types, these are ALL strengthen questions and among these 3 categories, the same overlapping frameworks are used. So keep that in mind.
We broke out Helps Explain and Argument Depends because there a number of such questions phrased this way. There is a slight nuance for these question types from other general strengthen questions but well get into that another day.
Combining Visualization and Frameworks
In Part 1, we already covered the introduction to visualization using the Table-top Approach.
In the two examples in Part 1, we looked at the basis of the argument and found ways to strengthen that basis.
Now, in this Part 2 lesson, well dive into a CR question and use one of GMATPill's 10 CR Frameworks on TOP of the visualization approach, to further increase speed and accuracy. The specific framework we'll be using will be applied to CR questions that have a before scenario and and after scenario. For example, the before scenario may describe some negative characteristic and the after scenario may describe some positive characteristic. Why the difference? Well, the difference between these two scenarios is due to some new variable that is introduced in the passage. The authors prediction is that this new variable is the reason why the after scenario is different from the before scenario. Our job is to strengthen that claim, to explain why or how exactly that variable is responsible for the changes observed between the before and after scenarios.
Whenever we come across this type of CR question, we should quickly have a few pre-thinking questions in mind before going into the answer choices. We dont want to read through the answer choices without having something in mind. If you blindly read through the answer choices, youll lose a lot of time reading and re-reading answer choices and ultimately you get distracted.
With before/after questions, we want to use a before/after framework approach. Heres what we focus on:
- 1) The Variable. What is so special about it? Can we elaborate on some detail about how the new variable works and how it interacts with everything before to create a positive outcome.
2) (occasionally) Show that nothing else is responsible for the new positive outcome.
Most of the time, the answer will be attained via the first pre-thinking strategy above. With #1, you want to ask yourself, whats so special about X? Give me more details. How exactly does it work. If it already has some basis, challenge that basis. If it doesnt, find out more information about it.
Lets take an example that uses the first pre-thinking strategy above within the context of GMAT Pills Before/After Framework.
CR Example 1
Quote:
Rheumatoid arthritis has been associated with deficiency in Vitamin B6. In parts of Southeast Asia, agriculturists are attempting to lower the frequency of arthritis in the aging population by encouraging farmers to use land for raising versatile meats such as chicken and turkey which are rich in vitamin B6. The plan has good chances of success, since meats are increasingly becoming a part of the region's diet, and the crop varieties currently grown contain little vitamin B6.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?
Most people reading the passage above will come across a lot of details from arthritis to vitamin b6 to raising chicken to diet in the region.
What is the best way to comprehend all of this?
Lets follow the GMAT Pill 3-Step Approach
Doing all 3 steps is feasible in real-time once you get enough practice. And youll notice how efficient it is over time.
Typically the conclusion is the last sentence of the CR passage, though not always. Here it is. The last sentence has a sentence structure of [Conclusion], since [support].
![Image]()
Notice the keyword since it signifies a claim to the left of it, and a reason for that claim to the right of it. This means the conclusion is the yellow portion highlighted above and the support is the rest of the sentence after since.
So what is the conclusion?
The plan has good chance of success.
If you followed along with the course, youll also see that this is an action outcome conclusion. We are not really describing a characteristic of the plan. Instead we are making a statement that following the plan will result in success. The word following is not explicitly used in the passage, but that is the intended meaning.
Visually, it looks like this:
![Image]()
The conclusion is that following the plan will lead to a positive outcome. The support for such a conclusion is everything else in the passage.
Sentence structure-wise, the support comes to the right of since meats are increasingly becoming a part of the regions diet.
But that alone does not comprise the support. Thats some additional information on top of information already presented in the question stem that further helps support the claim.
So what does the whole support look like?
Well, thats what well do utilizing the GMAT Pill Before/After framework. Recall that once the author introduced the plan, the outcome of the whole passage switched to success, a positive. So with the before/after framework, you want to envision whats going on before and after. Then ask the key question: what is so special about the plan? Why is it that following the plan will change things and around and make a negative turn into a positive (success)?
Heres what that visualization looks like:
![Image]()
So with key question #1 above, it seems we already have some details. Lets visualize those details.
![Image]()
Notice we have a basis for that plan and the basis for that plan is connected to the outcome of lower arthritis. This is considered success for the author since the objective of the plan is to find ways to lower arthritis in the population. By following the rationale presented for the plan, we see that it leads to more Vitamin B6 in the population, and since we avoid Vitamin B6 deficiency, its possible that we avoid Rheumatoid arthritis as well. If so, then this would be the positive outcome the author is hoping for.
But wait, we actually have even more information
![Image]()
So it seems the question stem already found a way to strengthen the argument. How the plan works is described then the second half of the sentence after since gives us additional information that confirms the population will increase B6. Specifically, it says that meats are becoming a part of the regions diet. This strengthens the basis of the plan. By strengthening the basis and showing that the plan actually will result in higher vitamin b6, the author s claim that the plan will lead to lower arthritis/success is strengthened.
Great, so we already strengthened the argument. Why then does the question STILL ask us to strengthen the argument?
Well, its certainly true that that last statement strengthened the argument. But our job is to strengthen the argument even further. This means finding another way to further strengthen the basis shown above.
Our first pre-thinking strategy was to ask whats so special about the plan well, lets see if we can find something else to strengthen the basis even further. Visually, lets look at the green chains above and see whether we can strengthen the link at any point in the chain. So any answer choice that talks about details of the plan and/or that connects one idea to the next idea in the sequence would be interesting to keep an eye on.
Essentially, what were doing is visualizing the details about the plan then looking for ways to strengthen the basis for that plan leading to the positive outcome.
So the pre-thinking you should have going into the answer choices is focus on the plan. Will using land for meats necessarily lead to increase in B6? Will increase in B6 necessarily result in lower arthritis? Will lower arthritis necessarily mean success?
These are all important questions to pre-think before looking at the answer choices.
(A) The growing conditions required by the varieties of agricultural crops currently cultivated in the region are conditions in which raising poultry farms of chicken and turkey can flourish.
(B) The flesh of chicken and turkey meats differs from that of the beef meats currently in the region's diet, so traditional meats would look and taste somewhat different when replaced with chicken and turkey.
(C) There are no other varieties of meats that are significantly richer in vitamin B6 than chicken and turkey is.
(D) The varieties of meats currently cultivated in the region contain some important nutrients that are lacking in vitamin B6.
(E) There are other meats currently grown in the region that contain more vitamin B6 than the meats imported do.
If you used the pre-thinking strategy we recommended (finding more details about the plan and looking for ways to strengthen its basis) you would quickly eliminate 3 of the 5 answer choices. (C), (D), and (E) used subjects that were not relevant to the plan.
If we think to ourselves, details about plan, details about chicken/turkey, details about raising these animals, details about eating these meats well, (C) says there are no meats with more B6 than chicken/turkey. Well, yes it does mention the word chicken/turkey BUT this is not the subject. Its a mere comparison. The main subject is that there are no other varieties of meats with a lot of B6. Well, this doesnt match our pre-thinking.
Then (D) talks about the meats currently cultivated there but whatever details about these meats is not important. The details about these current meats is not related to the argument which is about the new meats chicken/turkey.
Then (E) talks about the existence of other meats with certain characteristics. Other meats is not important to our pre-thinking (plans chicken/turkey).
Now, we are left with (A) and (B).
With (B), we do talk about characteristics of chicken/turkey so yes, this is some detail about the plan. Its some detail about the chicken/turkey, which is important to the plan. Specifically, (B) talks about how the chicken/turkey of the new plan is different from the meats in the current situation. Could the difference in taste be the cause for the plan being a success? Well, we already have a rationale for whats causing the success its the plan details. Now were saying theres a difference in taste ok, how do we connect difference in taste to success / lower arthritis / higher B6? We cant. Taste is a topic all on its own. We cant connect it to any other topic we have in our visualization. Thus, it cannot be used to strengthen our argument.
This is the beauty of pre-thinking your answer choice BEFORE looking at the answer choices. You save time reading and re-reading through answer choices many times you get even more confused because you start reading what they tell you and start believing what it is they say. Sometimes, the answer choices may repeat something in the passage and simply by repeating, you may think that you have an answer choice that is strengthening the conclusion. But this is not the case.
The best way is to deconstruct the argument given using visualization specifically by packaging what you have into the GMAT Pill table-top framework.
Once you visualize it this way, you can see exactly what youre missing, exactly what youre looking for as an ideal answer choice.
Answer choices C, D and E were not relevant to details of the plan. B was close but could not be connected to the visualization and thus could not be used to strengthen the basis of the argument. (A) was the best answer choice that was relevant, could connect to details of the plan and thus strengthened the basis for the argument that the plan would have success.
![Image]()
So the final answer (A) strengthens the basis of the argument by elaborating on some detail about the plan. So the Before/After framework got us asking for more details about the plan and encouraged us to find ways to strengthen the chain presented. We discovered the last sentence of the question stem already did this by saying that meats are becoming a part of the regions diet and so this will likely result in a Vitamin B6 increase.
Still, with the Before/After framework, we stuck to finding out more information about the plan. In doing so, we focused on details about the plan and quickly eliminated 3 answer choices that did not elaborate on the plan. Then the 4th answer choice (B) was eliminated because while it did talk about chicken/turkey (some detail about the plan) that specific detail about a difference in tastes could not be connected to the chain of topics that then led to the outcome of lower arthritis and success.
Only (A) offered another approach to strengthening basis specifically it talked about the weather conditions. (A) linked weather conditions to poultry by saying the conditions were good for raising poultry. If so, this means the decision to use land for meats will actually be effective. Raising poultry will actually be a good move because the poultry will then flourish. If so, then using land for meats will result in a flourishing flock of poultry and the population will see an increase in Vitamin B6 from its consumption of that poultry. With more b6, we might see less B6 deficiency and thus less Rheumatoid arthritis, which would ultimately mean success.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?
- (A) The growing conditions required by the varieties of agricultural crops currently cultivated in the region are conditions in which raising poultry farms of chicken and turkey can flourish.
(B) The flesh of chicken and turkey meats differs from that of the beef meats currently in the region's diet, so traditional meats would look and taste somewhat different when replaced with chicken and turkey.
(C) There are no other varieties of meats that are significantly richer in vitamin B6 than chicken and turkey is.
(D) The varieties of meats currently cultivated in the region contain some important nutrients that are lacking in vitamin B6.
(E) There are other meats currently grown in the region that contain more vitamin B6 than the meats imported do.
Most people reading the passage above will come across a lot of details from arthritis to vitamin b6 to raising chicken to diet in the region.
What is the best way to comprehend all of this?
Lets follow the GMAT Pill 3-Step Approach
- 1) Identify the conclusion
2) Visualize the Question
3) Pre-think the Answer
Doing all 3 steps is feasible in real-time once you get enough practice. And youll notice how efficient it is over time.
Step 1: Identify the Conclusion
Typically the conclusion is the last sentence of the CR passage, though not always. Here it is. The last sentence has a sentence structure of [Conclusion], since [support].
Notice the keyword since it signifies a claim to the left of it, and a reason for that claim to the right of it. This means the conclusion is the yellow portion highlighted above and the support is the rest of the sentence after since.
So what is the conclusion?
The plan has good chance of success.
Step 2: Visualize the Question
If you followed along with the course, youll also see that this is an action outcome conclusion. We are not really describing a characteristic of the plan. Instead we are making a statement that following the plan will result in success. The word following is not explicitly used in the passage, but that is the intended meaning.
Visually, it looks like this:
The conclusion is that following the plan will lead to a positive outcome. The support for such a conclusion is everything else in the passage.
Sentence structure-wise, the support comes to the right of since meats are increasingly becoming a part of the regions diet.
But that alone does not comprise the support. Thats some additional information on top of information already presented in the question stem that further helps support the claim.
So what does the whole support look like?
Well, thats what well do utilizing the GMAT Pill Before/After framework. Recall that once the author introduced the plan, the outcome of the whole passage switched to success, a positive. So with the before/after framework, you want to envision whats going on before and after. Then ask the key question: what is so special about the plan? Why is it that following the plan will change things and around and make a negative turn into a positive (success)?
Heres what that visualization looks like:
- 1) Whats so special about the plan? Elaborate
2) Nothing else is responsible for the positive success we see, only the plan is responsible
So with key question #1 above, it seems we already have some details. Lets visualize those details.
Notice we have a basis for that plan and the basis for that plan is connected to the outcome of lower arthritis. This is considered success for the author since the objective of the plan is to find ways to lower arthritis in the population. By following the rationale presented for the plan, we see that it leads to more Vitamin B6 in the population, and since we avoid Vitamin B6 deficiency, its possible that we avoid Rheumatoid arthritis as well. If so, then this would be the positive outcome the author is hoping for.
But wait, we actually have even more information
So it seems the question stem already found a way to strengthen the argument. How the plan works is described then the second half of the sentence after since gives us additional information that confirms the population will increase B6. Specifically, it says that meats are becoming a part of the regions diet. This strengthens the basis of the plan. By strengthening the basis and showing that the plan actually will result in higher vitamin b6, the author s claim that the plan will lead to lower arthritis/success is strengthened.
Great, so we already strengthened the argument. Why then does the question STILL ask us to strengthen the argument?
Well, its certainly true that that last statement strengthened the argument. But our job is to strengthen the argument even further. This means finding another way to further strengthen the basis shown above.
Step 3: Pre-think the Answer
Our first pre-thinking strategy was to ask whats so special about the plan well, lets see if we can find something else to strengthen the basis even further. Visually, lets look at the green chains above and see whether we can strengthen the link at any point in the chain. So any answer choice that talks about details of the plan and/or that connects one idea to the next idea in the sequence would be interesting to keep an eye on.
Essentially, what were doing is visualizing the details about the plan then looking for ways to strengthen the basis for that plan leading to the positive outcome.
So the pre-thinking you should have going into the answer choices is focus on the plan. Will using land for meats necessarily lead to increase in B6? Will increase in B6 necessarily result in lower arthritis? Will lower arthritis necessarily mean success?
These are all important questions to pre-think before looking at the answer choices.
Answer choices:
(A) The growing conditions required by the varieties of agricultural crops currently cultivated in the region are conditions in which raising poultry farms of chicken and turkey can flourish.
- Yes. Mentions that its possible to raise chicken/turkey this is part of the plan OK. Does this then result in success? If conditions are compatible with poultry farms, this means that yes, the effort to raise chicken will actually work. With actual chicken raised and the fact that the diet is increasingly turning toward meats, the population will likely have more vitamin B6. If this is the case, then arthritis is likely lower and we will likely have success.
(B) The flesh of chicken and turkey meats differs from that of the beef meats currently in the region's diet, so traditional meats would look and taste somewhat different when replaced with chicken and turkey.
- Not relevant
Mentions difference in taste between existing foods and foods under new plan. Does not make a stronger association between plan and more B6 in the area. Difference in taste does not lead to anything else we cannot link it to the plans chain of events that eventually leads to the outcome.
(C) There are no other varieties of meats that are significantly richer in vitamin B6 than chicken and turkey is.
- Not relevant.
Mentions chicken/turkey are quite good B6 sources but does not make a stronger association between plan and more B6 in the area. (C) just cannot be linked to the basis we visualized, thus not relevant in strengthening that basis.
(D) The varieties of meats currently cultivated in the region contain some important nutrients that are lacking in vitamin B6.
- Not relevant.
Mentions some positives for existing food and acknowledging the lack of B6. But not related to the plan and saying the plan *will* boost B6. Characteristics of the current meats is not relevant to the plan which is about new meats (chicken/turkey).
(E) There are other meats currently grown in the region that contain more vitamin B6 than the meats imported do.
- Not relevant.
Mentions meat imports are low in B6 but our plan is not about importing meats. Its about the new meats chicken and turkey. (E) is not related to anything about the plan and showing that the plan will result in more B6 in the area. So, not relevant. The existence of other meats with B6 (even if high levels) is not related to the plan which is about chicken/turkey and whether that plan has success or not.
If you used the pre-thinking strategy we recommended (finding more details about the plan and looking for ways to strengthen its basis) you would quickly eliminate 3 of the 5 answer choices. (C), (D), and (E) used subjects that were not relevant to the plan.
If we think to ourselves, details about plan, details about chicken/turkey, details about raising these animals, details about eating these meats well, (C) says there are no meats with more B6 than chicken/turkey. Well, yes it does mention the word chicken/turkey BUT this is not the subject. Its a mere comparison. The main subject is that there are no other varieties of meats with a lot of B6. Well, this doesnt match our pre-thinking.
Then (D) talks about the meats currently cultivated there but whatever details about these meats is not important. The details about these current meats is not related to the argument which is about the new meats chicken/turkey.
Then (E) talks about the existence of other meats with certain characteristics. Other meats is not important to our pre-thinking (plans chicken/turkey).
Now, we are left with (A) and (B).
With (B), we do talk about characteristics of chicken/turkey so yes, this is some detail about the plan. Its some detail about the chicken/turkey, which is important to the plan. Specifically, (B) talks about how the chicken/turkey of the new plan is different from the meats in the current situation. Could the difference in taste be the cause for the plan being a success? Well, we already have a rationale for whats causing the success its the plan details. Now were saying theres a difference in taste ok, how do we connect difference in taste to success / lower arthritis / higher B6? We cant. Taste is a topic all on its own. We cant connect it to any other topic we have in our visualization. Thus, it cannot be used to strengthen our argument.
This is the beauty of pre-thinking your answer choice BEFORE looking at the answer choices. You save time reading and re-reading through answer choices many times you get even more confused because you start reading what they tell you and start believing what it is they say. Sometimes, the answer choices may repeat something in the passage and simply by repeating, you may think that you have an answer choice that is strengthening the conclusion. But this is not the case.
The best way is to deconstruct the argument given using visualization specifically by packaging what you have into the GMAT Pill table-top framework.
Once you visualize it this way, you can see exactly what youre missing, exactly what youre looking for as an ideal answer choice.
Answer choices C, D and E were not relevant to details of the plan. B was close but could not be connected to the visualization and thus could not be used to strengthen the basis of the argument. (A) was the best answer choice that was relevant, could connect to details of the plan and thus strengthened the basis for the argument that the plan would have success.
Final Answer (A)
So the final answer (A) strengthens the basis of the argument by elaborating on some detail about the plan. So the Before/After framework got us asking for more details about the plan and encouraged us to find ways to strengthen the chain presented. We discovered the last sentence of the question stem already did this by saying that meats are becoming a part of the regions diet and so this will likely result in a Vitamin B6 increase.
Still, with the Before/After framework, we stuck to finding out more information about the plan. In doing so, we focused on details about the plan and quickly eliminated 3 answer choices that did not elaborate on the plan. Then the 4th answer choice (B) was eliminated because while it did talk about chicken/turkey (some detail about the plan) that specific detail about a difference in tastes could not be connected to the chain of topics that then led to the outcome of lower arthritis and success.
Only (A) offered another approach to strengthening basis specifically it talked about the weather conditions. (A) linked weather conditions to poultry by saying the conditions were good for raising poultry. If so, this means the decision to use land for meats will actually be effective. Raising poultry will actually be a good move because the poultry will then flourish. If so, then using land for meats will result in a flourishing flock of poultry and the population will see an increase in Vitamin B6 from its consumption of that poultry. With more b6, we might see less B6 deficiency and thus less Rheumatoid arthritis, which would ultimately mean success.
Summary
By visualizing this question with the Before/After framework (GMATPill's Framework #1) and applying the key pre-think question, you saved yourself plenty of time and more clearly understood what exactly this CR question is testing you on. Once you start applying this framework to other CR questions that test you on this concept youll find that you have an advantage. You know exactly where to be looking for your answer. That advantage translates into higher scores on the GMAT and youll be glad that you discovered this framework and learned how to apply it.
This is the beauty of not just the visualization, but also the framework that is applied to this question. Once you use both, the power of conquering CR becomes that much more within your reach.
Visualization of CR can get more complex for various types of CR questions. As such, GMAT Pill utilizes additional frameworks to help you take advantage of certain question types that come up over and over. These frameworks help pinpoint what parts of a visual diagram are less important for the purposes of answering the question and which parts are more important and can utilize quick strategies to yield the final answer.
Learn more about the GMAT Pill CR Framework and find out if its the secret sauce youre missing for conquering critical reasoning.