{"id":127,"date":"2026-10-02T11:03:54","date_gmt":"2026-10-02T11:03:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grockit.com\/gmat\/?p=127"},"modified":"2026-10-02T16:04:52","modified_gmt":"2026-10-02T16:04:52","slug":"conquering-your-weakeners-on-gmat-critical-reasoning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/gmat\/conquering-your-weakeners-on-gmat-critical-reasoning\/","title":{"rendered":"GMAT Critical Reasoning: Weaken Questions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The flipside of the \u201cstrengthen\u201d question coin on the GMAT is the \u201cweaken\u201d question. The same set of evidence and conclusion can easily be used for either question type, so it\u2019s always a good idea to start by reading the question itself first, to determine the task before you go to the argument. After that, your approach is almost identical to the way that you would approach a strengthen question. Take this question, for example:<br \/>\t<div   class='av_promobox  avia-button-no   avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_heading  avia-builder-el-first '>\t\t<div class='avia-promocontent'><p>Healica, a new drug that can cure a common disease that until now has been fatal for 50% of those infected, is made from the root of the New Zealand banananut tree. The banananut tree is rare in New Zealand, and large quantities of the root are necessary in order to make Healica. Therefore, if Healica remains in production, the banananut tree will eventually become extinct.<br \/>If true, which of the following most calls into question the conclusion above?<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>a) The company that holds the patent to Healica has exclusive rights to produce the drug for another 10 years.<br \/>b) Healica is expensive, and is not currently covered by most major insurance plans.<br \/>c) Banananut leaves are considered a gourmet delicacy in many parts of the world.<br \/>d) The banananut tree, although native to New Zealand, can easily be grown in other parts of the world.<br \/>e) Producing Healica is time-consuming and expensive for the drug manufacturer.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>\n<\/div><\/div><br \/>You should always read the question first, and here the commonly-used phrase \u201ccalls into question\u201d means that this question is asking for a weakener.<\/p>\n<p>Looking at the argument, we can see from the clue word \u201ctherefore\u201d that the conclusion is the last sentence of the argument: \u201cif Healica remains in production, the banananut tree will eventually become extinct.\u201d Now our job is to find a way to attack the argument, and the easiest way to do that is to identify an existing weakness and exploit it.<\/p>\n<p>Here, as in many arguments on the GMAT, the argument has an unstated assumption. The evidence states that the banananut tree is \u201crare in New Zealand,\u201d and concludes that extinction will occur because of that. But for something to be extinct, it must not exist anywhere in the world, and we only have evidence about the tree\u2019s growth in one country. The unstated assumptions are that the tree doesn\u2019t grow anywhere else, and that growth can\u2019t keep up with the demand for the trees. A great way to weaken the argument, then, is to attack one of those assumptions.<br \/><div  style='padding-bottom:10px; ' class='av-special-heading av-special-heading-h4  blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_promobox  el_before_av_icon_box  '><h4 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >Evaluating the Answer Choices<\/h4><div class='special-heading-border'><div class='special-heading-inner-border' ><\/div><\/div><\/div><br \/><strong>a) The company that holds the patent to Healica has exclusive rights to produce the drug for another 10 years.<\/strong><br \/>This choice would require another assumption in order to weaken the conclusion: that the one company producing Healica would not produce enough of it to kill off the banananut tree. Weakeners, like strengtheners, shouldn\u2019t require so much work to fit into the argument.<\/p>\n<p><strong>b) Healica is expensive, and is not currently covered by most major insurance plans.<\/strong><br \/>This choice, like choice a), is not closely enough related to the argument.<\/p>\n<p><strong>c) Banananut leaves are considered a gourmet delicacy in many parts of the world.<\/strong><br \/>This choice makes it more likely that the trees will be in demand and will face extinction. The argument is strengthened, not weakened, by this choice.<\/p>\n<p><strong>d) The banananut tree, although native to New Zealand, can easily be grown in other parts of the world.<\/strong><br \/>This is the correct answer, since it exploits the unstated assumptions by explicitly disproving that one of them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>e) Producing Healica is time-consuming and expensive for the drug manufacturer.<\/strong><br \/>This choice has the same problem as choices a) and b): it takes extra assumptions to fit it into the argument, and that\u2019s not what we want.<\/p>\n<p>If you find yourself taking several extra logical steps to explain how an answer choice relates back to the argument and makes the conclusion less likely to follow from the evidence, then the answer choice is probably not close enough to the text of the argument as written. The test is written so that each question belongs in its own little world, and outside knowledge is rarely relevant to finding the correct answer.<br \/>\u00a0<br \/><article  class=\"iconbox iconbox_left    avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_heading  el_before_av_toggle_container  \"  itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/BlogPosting\" itemprop=\"blogPost\" ><div class=\"iconbox_content\"><header class=\"entry-content-header\"><div class=\"iconbox_icon heading-color\" aria-hidden='true' data-av_icon='\ue83f' data-av_iconfont='entypo-fontello'  ><\/div><h3 class='iconbox_content_title  '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >Remember<\/h3><\/header><div class='iconbox_content_container  '  itemprop=\"text\"  ><p>Stay close to the internal logic of the argument, and don\u2019t bring in specialized outside knowledge. Also remember that the correct answer just has to make the conclusion <em>less likely to follow from the evidence<\/em>; it doesn\u2019t need to completely disprove the conclusion, although sometimes it will. So make sure that you\u2019re not looking for unnecessarily extreme answers.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><footer class=\"entry-footer\"><\/footer><\/article><\/p>\n\n\n<h2>GMAT Weaken Practice Question<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>* Tiger sharks are common in the waters surrounding Tenare Island. Usually tiger sharks feed on smaller sharks, but sometimes they have attacked tourists swimming and surfing at Tenare\u2019s beaches. This has hurt Tenare\u2019s tourism industry, which is second only to its fishing industry in annual revenues. In order to help the economy, therefore, the mayor of the island has proposed an ongoing program to kill any tiger sharks within a mile of the beaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Which of the following, if true, most strongly calls into question the likelihood that implementation of the mayor\u2019s proposal will have the desired consequences?<br><br>(A) Even if not all the tiger sharks that come close to the beaches are killed, the existence of the program would reassure tourists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(B) Business owners who depend on tourism are willing to pay most of the cost of implementing the program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(C) Tourists come to Tenare Island for its beaches, even though the island features a number of other tourist attractions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(D) The small sharks on which tiger sharks prey feed on fish that are commercially important to the island\u2019s fisheries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(E) Not all tourists who come to Tenare Island enjoy swimming or surfing.<\/p>\n\n\n<div  class=\"togglecontainer   toggle_close_all  avia-builder-el-3  el_after_av_icon_box  avia-builder-el-last \" ><section class=\"av_toggle_section\"  itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/BlogPosting\" itemprop=\"blogPost\"  >    <div role=\"tablist\" class=\"single_toggle\" data-tags=\"{All} \"  >        <p data-fake-id=\"#toggle-id-1\" class=\"toggler \"  itemprop=\"headline\"    role=\"tab\" tabindex=\"0\" aria-controls=\"toggle-id-1\">Answer Explanation <span class=\"toggle_icon\" >        <span class=\"vert_icon\"><\/span><span class=\"hor_icon\"><\/span><\/span><\/p>        <div id=\"toggle-id-1\" class=\"toggle_wrap \"  >            <div class=\"toggle_content invers-color \"  itemprop=\"text\"   ><p>Step 1: Identify the Question<br \/>First, we read the question stem:<\/p>\n<p>Which of the following, if true, most strongly calls into question the likelihood that implementation of the mayor\u2019s proposal will have the desired consequences?<\/p>\n<p>The key identifying language is not as straightforward as usual on this one. The language if true indicates that we probably have either a strengthen, weaken, or paradox question. (It\u2019s possible to have a different question type, but if true language indicates one of these three types the vast majority of the time.)<\/p>\n<p>The language indicates that the mayor has some kind of proposal with certain desired consequences \u201c basically, the mayor has a plan that is supposed to lead to some certain conclusion or outcome. The question asks us to call this into question \u201c in other words, we\u2019re looking for something that\u2019s going to weaken the conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Now we need to go read the argument and figure out what the mayor\u2019s conclusion is!<\/p>\n<p>Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument<br \/>In this argument, the first sentence is background information: a certain kind of shark lives in a certain region. The second sentence also contains facts. Now we know that tiger sharks normally eat other sharks, but they have been known to attack people. The third sentence contains more facts: the shark attacks have hurt tourism and tourism is important to the region (along with fishing).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, we get to the conclusion in the final sentence. First, note the opening language: in order to help the economy. This is really important. Some plan is going to be proposed in order to help the economy. In other words, it\u2019s pretty likely that helping the economy is the final conclusion. Read on. The mayor wants to kill the tiger sharks that are close to the beaches. Why? In order to help the economy.<\/p>\n<p>Notice how they\u2019re trying to trick us! The word therefore comes right before the plan to kill the sharks, not right before the in order to help the economy language, so it would be very easy to say that the plan itself is the conclusion. But why is the mayor implementing this plan? If the plan succeeds, then what will happen? The economy will get better in some way.<\/p>\n<p>Your notes might look something like this (though there are lots of ways to write notes!):<\/p>\n<p>Usu: TS eat sm S<br \/>BUT st attk ppl \u00e2\u2020\u2019 \u00e2\u2020\u201c tour ind #2 (#1=fish)<br \/>\u00a9 kill TS near bch \u00e2\u2020\u2019 \u00e2\u2020\u2018 econ<\/p>\n<p>Note that I used abbreviations; you can use any you want as long as they make sense to you. My typical abbreviation for usually or normally is Usu: (with the colon after). It\u2019s fairly common for an argument or RC passage to talk about how something is usually or typically done, so that\u2019s why I have a standard abbreviation that I always use. I use the abbreviation \u201cst\u201d to mean either sometimes or something (in this case, it means sometimes).I also used horizontal arrows to show when one thing led to another, and up and down arrows \u201c these can be used to show something that\u2019s getting better or worse, or for quantities (more or less of something) and so on. Finally, I used a c with a circle around it to indicate the conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>While I\u2019ve been doing this, I\u2019ve also been looking for assumptions. What are assumptions?<\/p>\n<p>Assumptions are NOT stated in the argument, but they are things that the author (whoever\u2019s drawing the conclusion) must believe to be true in order to draw that conclusion. In this case, the mayor is drawing the conclusion that killing the tiger sharks in the area will help the economy. What is the mayor assuming must be true?<\/p>\n<p>The mayor is assuming that they can actually find and kill the tiger sharks. The mayor is assuming that there aren\u2019t so many that they\u2019ll just keep coming. The mayor is also assuming that killing the tiger sharks won\u2019t have an unexpected consequence that could actually hurt the economy rather than help it. For example, what if tourists found out about the plan and decided not to vacation on the island in protest?<\/p>\n<p>I don\u2019t need to brainstorm all of the possible assumptions \u201c I don\u2019t have time! \u201c but I do have some general ideas: the plan has to work in the way that the mayor is assuming it will, and the plan can\u2019t have the unexpected consequence of hurting the economy in some way instead of helping it. These two generalities are often true on problems in which there is some kind of plan that is designed to lead to a specific goal.<\/p>\n<p>Step 3: State the Goal<br \/>Our goal is to find an answer that makes the mayor\u2019s plan a bit less likely to succeed. (On weaken questions, we do not have to find an answer the completely destroys the argument; it\u2019s enough to make the conclusion less likely to be true or valid.)<\/p>\n<p>Glance at the wording of the question again: it specifically asks us to find something that will hurt the ability to achieve the desired consequences. In other words: somehow, something will actually make it more likely that the plan would fail to help the economy. We need to find that thing.<\/p>\n<p>Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right<br \/>(A) Even if not all the tiger sharks that come close to the beaches are killed, the existence of the program would reassure tourists.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s see. We put the plan into place. We kill some sharks. We can\u2019t kill all of them, but the tourists are reassured. This would be likely to help tourism, which would help the economy. That doesn\u2019t weaken the conclusion. Eliminate A. (This is a Reverse Logic\u009d trap: we want to weaken the conclusion; this answer strengthens the conclusion.)<\/p>\n<p>(B) Business owners who depend on tourism are willing to pay most of the cost of implementing the program.<\/p>\n<p>Oh, that\u2019s interesting: maybe the flaw in the plan is that it will cost money and so that will hurt the economy somehow! Hmm. Wait, but this says that the business owners are willing to pay the costs, not that they\u2019re protesting the costs. That doesn\u2019t hurt the mayor\u2019s plan; in fact, it sounds like the business owners approve of the plan! Eliminate B.<\/p>\n<p>(C) Tourists come to Tenare Island for its beaches, even though the island features a number of other tourist attractions.<\/p>\n<p>If the tourists do vacation here primarily in order to go to the beach, then the tiger shark problem is definitely a big problem \u201c they\u2019d better solve it! But they already know that; that\u2019s why the mayor is proposing this plan. If nobody cared about the beaches or the tiger shark problem, then they wouldn\u2019t have to bother implementing this plan. This doesn\u2019t weaken the idea that the plan will succeed. Nor does it strengthen the idea. This choice just does nothing at all to the conclusion. Eliminate C.<\/p>\n<p>(D) The small sharks on which tiger sharks prey feed on fish that are commercially important to the island\u2019s fisheries.<\/p>\n<p>This one kind of seems like it\u2019s out of left field. Who cares about the small sharks that the tiger sharks eat? Let\u2019s see. The tiger sharks normally eat these small sharks, and the small sharks normally eat fish that the fisheries are using or catching. So the small sharks are actually bad for the fishing industry because they eat up the fish. So what?<\/p>\n<p>Oh, I think I see. Right now, the tiger sharks may be keeping the population of the smaller sharks under control \u201c there aren\u2019t too many because the tiger sharks are eating them. If we get rid of all of the tiger sharks, then the smaller sharks will likely start increasing in number, which means they\u2019ll be eating more fish, which means bad for the fishing industry. And the fishing industry is a major part of the economy; in fact, according to the argument, the fishing industry is even more important than the tourist industry. (Notice that the conclusion only says we\u2019re trying to help the economy\u009d \u201c overall. It doesn\u2019t say that we\u2019re only trying to help the tourist economy!)<\/p>\n<p>Wow, really? I\u2019m a bit unsure whether I can really take that many steps. But the first three were definitely wrong. Well, I\u2019ll leave this one in for now and check answer E.<\/p>\n<p>(E) Not all tourists who come to Tenare Island enjoy swimming or surfing.<\/p>\n<p>Okay, maybe some people don\u2019t really care about the tiger sharks because they\u2019re not there to use the beach. How does that affect whether the mayor\u2019s plan will work?<\/p>\n<p>It doesn\u2019t. It doesn\u2019t address the plan at all \u201c this answer is out of scope. They\u2019re trying to get us to think Oh, maybe the shark thing isn\u2019t such a big problem after all, because some people don\u2019t care about the beach. But the argument flat-out told us that the tourism industry is already being hurt, and the question asked us to find something that weakens the mayor\u2019s specific plan. This answer doesn\u2019t address any of that. Eliminate E.<\/p>\n<p>The correct answer is D.<\/p>\n            <\/div>        <\/div>    <\/div><\/section>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<div style=\"height:50px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2>Key Takeaways for Solving Weaken CR Problems:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Know how to recognize this type. The question stem will contain if true\u009d or equivalent language, as well as language such as most weakens, most seriously undermines, casts the most doubt, calls into question, or something similar.<\/li><li>Know what to do with Weaken questions. Find the conclusion and identify the main supporting premise(s), then brainstorm assumptions. Our goal is to find an answer that makes the conclusion at least a little less likely to be true. We don\u2019t need to find an answer that completely destroys the conclusion.<\/li><li>Watch out for traps! These questions usually contain a Reverse Logic trap (they ask us to weaken, and the answer strengthens instead, or vice versa). In addition, be careful not to eliminate too quickly because you think something is out of scope. Check to see whether it affects the conclusion in any way. It\u2019s only out of scope if it does not affect the conclusion. (If it does affect the conclusion, then that answer either weakens or strengthens the conclusion.)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The flipside of the \u201cstrengthen\u201d question coin on the GMAT is the \u201cweaken\u201d question. The same set of evidence and conclusion can easily be used for either question type, so it\u2019s always a good idea to start by reading the question itself first, to determine the task before you go to the argument. After that, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":28706,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[55],"tags":[516],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50645,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127\/revisions\/50645"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/28706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpapp.kaptest.com\/study\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}