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.

# Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Weakening Questions

Citizens in Country X are frequently complaining that lines in government offices are much longer now than they were 15 years ago. No real measure of the length of the lines in government offices in Country X today exists,  but the citizens' complaints are almost certainly exaggerated, if not altogether unwarranted. The number of government officials in Country X has quadrupled over the past 15 years whereas the number of citizens has only doubled.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the above conclusion?

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. What's missing in this answer choice in order for it to be correct is information about the current average waiting time, specifically information showing that today's waiting time is shorter than 7 minutes. Without a figure to compare it to, 7 minutes is useless information and cannot help us weaken the conclusion.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion by confirming its assumption, showing that there are more service-providing government officials per citizen today than there were 15 years ago. This change in ratio is likely to yield shorter waiting times and shorter lines. However, you were asked to weaken the conclusion that the citizens' complaints are uncalled for (i.e., prove the complaints are justified).

Well done!

[[snippet]]

This answer choice attacks the argument's assumption. Just because more officials are employed does not mean that they are used in positions that will directly shorten the lines.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion while we're supposed to be weakening it. If the number of all citizens (i.e., the total number of adults and children) has doubled, and the number of children has tripled, the percentage of adult citizens has diminished over the past 15 years. Children do not normally go to government offices so this implies shorter waiting time and shorter lines. However, we should be looking for information that shows that this is not true.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. Since the argument deals with a comparison between today's lines and those of 15 years ago, to weaken the conclusion we need an answer choice that will favor one of the two situations. Because this answer choice only gives us data about today's situation, we cannot compare it to that of 15 years ago.

The average waiting time in a government office line 15 years ago was 7 minutes.
The number of government officials that have direct contact with the public has more than quadrupled over the past 15 years.
Only a small percentage of government officials that have joined the civil service in the past 15 years have direct contact with the public.
The number of children under 18 in Country X has tripled over the past 15 years.
Many citizens pay a visit to a government office at least once a month.