Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Dialog Analysis Questions

Adviser: Flights and accommodation for members of our administration to overseas destinations seriously depleted last year's annual budget. I propose a reduction in the number of such administrative journeys in order to complete the upcoming year with a more significant profit than that of last year.

Foreign minister: Such visits often lead to financial partnerships that can form the basis for economic growth through cooperation.

The foreign minister responds to the advisor's proposal by

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

The foreign minister's statement doesn't directly relate to the adviser's argument in any way. Instead, the statement adds new information which affects the suggestion made by the adviser.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

The link suggested by the adviser seems quite logical - the visits are expensive and, therefore, affect the profits. The foreign minister doesn't not argue with this point. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the foreign minister was highlighting a flaw in the adviser's logic.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

First, the foreign minister does not present a viewpoint (opinion) but rather factual information (a new premise). Second, the foreign minister has no problem with the facts about the visits being expensive, and does not try to deny this fact.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

The foreign minister's statement is not an alternative strategy; the minister does not suggest any other way of lowering costs, but instead suggests a mitigating factor, that is, a redeeming quality about the flights.

Right on!

[[snippet]]

The foreign minister does not deny the adviser's facts, but has a problem with the suggested plan of limiting the visits. The counter premise is the fact that visits ultimately lead to further revenues (economic growth) and, therefore, make the costs of the visits less significant, and even negligible to a certain point.

indicating that the factual information chosen by the adviser to support the proposal is irrelevant to the problem being contemplated
challenging the position taken by the adviser by highlighting a flaw in the logical reasoning that was used to connect the visits to the low profits
refraining from objecting to the facts used to support the proposal while presenting a positive factor that can outweigh the influence of those facts
offering a viewpoint that attempts to undermine the factual information put forward in order to support that proposal
suggesting an alternative strategy, and thereby weakening that put forward by the adviser as a solution to a certain problem