Tricky GMAT Critical Reasoning: Navigating Difficult Answer Choices
When preparing for the GMAT, I noticed something important: CR questions often seem straightforward during regular practice. However, on practice tests or the actual exam, once you hit the 10-30 question range—usually the hurdle before reaching higher score levels, meaning you’re facing tougher questions—CR questions start to get tricky. They often feature:
- Incorrect answers that mimic the correct one but contradict the premise or simply restate information already given.
- Correct answers worded so indirectly that they feel “off” or unusual, even if you grasp the meaning. You might feel like you have to force extra reasoning, only to find out later it was the right choice.
- Two options that seem relevant and point in the right direction, leaving you unsure which to pick.
- Options with such complex phrasing and tone that you’re left wondering what they’re even trying to say.
These four types of options have actually been present in past questions, but we often dismiss them without taking them seriously. I want to share my experiences of being tricked by these options and how I navigated and refined my approach to achieve a 760 on my first attempt.
Incorrect answers are phrased very similarly to the correct answer’s pattern, but upon reviewing the answer key, you realize they contradict the premise or are already included in the information provided by the premise.
These options might seem to align with what you expect, but they actually contradict the specific details in the passage. When you’re under time pressure, they can feel tempting, creating an “anchoring effect.” You might lock onto one as the answer and only give the others a quick glance. Sometimes, you might even run out of patience and pick it without reading all five.
Instead of just reviewing the answers, I started thinking about how to adjust my approach to avoid these traps. My first thought was: “I’ll just read slower and memorize everything.” But that’s not realistic; trying to remember too much just gets confusing and wastes time.
So, I changed my strategy. Even if an option looks like a solid answer, I force myself not to jump on it immediately. I tell myself it might be a trap. I take a breath and use the process of elimination on all five options. Plausible-looking choices get set aside for a second look. If I’m still down to two or three options after the first pass, I then meticulously re-read the passage, checking each remaining option against the premises.
Correct answers are worded very indirectly. During the exam, you read them and feel like you understand the meaning, but it feels “weird” and not like a typical pattern. You can’t pinpoint what’s wrong, feeling like you have to force an extra layer of reasoning to get there. But upon review, you find out it was indeed the correct answer…
In Gandania, the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales. For the past twenty years, smoking-related health problems there have steadily increased. The health secretary recently proposed laws to curb tobacco use. However, profits from tobacco sales account for ten percent of Gandania’s annual revenue. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to implement these proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) All health care in Gandania is government-funded.
(B) Implementing the proposed laws will not cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.
(C) The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.
(D) Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.
(E) No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.
(Answer A)
As a construction material, bamboo is as strong as steel and sturdier than concrete. In tropical areas, bamboo is also much less expensive than either steel or concrete and is readily available. In these regions, therefore, building with bamboo makes more economic sense than building with steel or concrete, except where land values are high.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the exception noted above?
(A) Buildings constructed of bamboo are less likely to suffer earthquake damage than are steel and concrete buildings.
(B) Bamboo is unsuitable as a building material for multistory buildings.
(C) In order to protect it from being damaged by termites and beetles, bamboo must be soaked, at some expense, in a preservative.
(D) In some tropical areas, bamboo is used to make the scaffolding that is used during large construction projects.
(E) Bamboo growing in an area where land values are increasing is often cleared to make way for construction.
(Answer B)
When I encounter questions like these, my initial feeling is: “Strange, after going through all five options once, I can’t find the answer?” The characteristic of these correct answers is that they seem completely unrelated at first glance, appearing too indirect or far-fetched. However, they aren’t entirely irrelevant; they just require several layers of reasoning. The thinking behind these questions is that even if the correct option is indirect, the others are even less relevant. So, it’s the “relatively” correct answer. This is why I set aside options that seem plausible or point in the right direction for a second round of comparison.
Two options seem relevant and point in the right direction, leaving you unsure of what to do.
This video thoroughly explains this scenario, so please check it out.
The structure and tone of the options are too complex, and after reading them, you have no idea what they’re trying to convey.
In a real exam, when you encounter these types of options, you need a strategy. Getting stuck on one option (say, B) and rereading it might lead to a partial understanding but can ruin your mood and create more time pressure for the remaining options. Some test-takers, feeling they’ve already invested time, might think, “I have to get this right,” and spend an excessive amount of time on a single question, throwing off their entire pace.
Conclusion: Use a Cautious Two-Round Elimination Strategy in the Actual Exam
In short, here’s how to approach CR questions on the actual exam: Don’t expect to select the answer in one round. Adopt a two-round elimination approach for all questions.
Round 1: Broad Elimination
不確定自己現在幾分？
12 題免費測出分數區間 →
- Eliminate only the options that are clearly irrelevant or directly contradict the question’s requirements.
- Decisively set aside options that seem plausible, are confusingly worded, or are simply incomprehensible for the second round.
Round 2: Refined Selection
- First, re-examine the “plausible” options. Do they contradict the premises or simply restate information already provided? If they hold up, they’re likely the correct answer.
- Next, compare the more convoluted options. Determine which one best fits the passage’s logic, directly addresses the conclusion, and has a clearer, stronger argument.
- Finally, if time permits, reread any options you initially didn’t understand. If time is tight, it’s better to make an educated guess and move on.
On medium to high-difficulty questions, even if your understanding of the concepts is solid, a flawed thought process can still lead you astray. What sets me apart is my focus on refining my approach, not just on knowing the material. After all, business schools value candidates who can optimize processes, don’t they?
Appendix
Here, I’ll address a common problem: “I eliminated all five options in a CR question. What now?”
Dustin suggests this might happen if you have too strong a “preconceived notion” of the answer and are unwilling to choose an option that doesn’t perfectly match your prediction. Remember, the same scenario can lead to various correct answer phrasings. For harder questions, the correct answer is less likely to follow a predictable pattern—that’s what makes them difficult.
