Premiolex Corporation spokesperson: In our survey of Premiolex customers, the majority of respondents rated our services as "excellent," whereas in...

GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions

Source: Mock

Two Part Analysis

Verbal - CR

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Premiolex Corporation spokesperson: In our survey of Premiolex customers, the majority of respondents rated our services as "excellent," whereas in our competitor Cretazole's survey, the majority of their respondents rated Cretazole's services as "very good." That's proof that—on average, at least—our customers have a higher opinion of Premiolex's services than Cretazole's customers have of its services.

Skeptic: I don't think the spokesperson's conclusion necessarily follows from the evidence he cites. What if, for example, the Premiolex survey asked participants to choose from among options that weren't all identical to the ones used in Cretazole's survey?

Select for Premiolex survey and Cretazole survey the options such that, in combination, the Premiolex survey and Cretazole survey would support the skeptic's position and be consistent with the spokesperson's report of the results but indicate that the spokesperson's conclusion does not necessarily follow. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Premiolex survey

Cretazole survey

Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor

Excellent, Very Good, Acceptable, Poor

Superior, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair

Exceptional, Superior, Very Good, Adequate, Poor

Superb, Excellent, Good, Fair, Unacceptable

Solution

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

Argument Analysis Table

Text from Passage	Analysis
"In our survey of Premiolex customers, the majority of respondents rated our services as 'excellent'"	What it says: Most Premiolex customers chose "excellent" rating What it does: Provides evidence for comparison Key connections: Forms basis for spokesperson's conclusion Visualization: Majority = >50% selecting "excellent"
"in our competitor Cretazole's survey, the majority of their respondents rated Cretazole's services as 'very good'"	What it says: Most Cretazole customers chose "very good" rating What it does: Provides comparative evidence Key connections: Compared directly to Premiolex results Visualization: Majority = >50% selecting "very good"
"That's proof that...our customers have a higher opinion"	What it says: Claims Premiolex customers are more satisfied What it does: States the conclusion Key connections: Based on comparing "excellent" to "very good" Visualization: Assumes excellent > very good universally
"What if...the Premiolex survey asked participants to choose from among options that weren't all identical"	What it says: Surveys might have used different rating scales What it does: Challenges the validity of comparison Key connections: Questions whether terms are comparable Visualization: Different scales = invalid comparison

Argument Structure

Main conclusion: Premiolex customers have higher opinion than Cretazole customers
Evidence: Majority ratings of "excellent" vs "very good"
Key assumption: These ratings are directly comparable
Skeptic's challenge: Different scales make comparison invalid

Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking

Understanding What Each Part Asks

We need to select rating scales that:

Part 1 (Premiolex survey): Must include "excellent" as an option that majority could select
Part 2 (Cretazole survey): Must include "very good" as an option that majority could select
Combined effect: Must show that the spokesperson's conclusion doesn't necessarily follow

Prethinking Based on Question Type

This is asking us to weaken the spokesperson's reasoning by showing the comparison is invalid:

We need scales where "excellent" and "very good" might represent similar satisfaction levels
The scales should be structured differently to prevent direct comparison

Specific Prethinking for Each Part

For Premiolex: Need a scale where "excellent" isn't the highest rating
For Cretazole: Need a scale where "very good" is relatively high
Combined: Should show both groups might have similar satisfaction despite different terminology

Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation

Evaluating Each Choice

Let's examine what position each rating occupies in each scale:

Choice 1: Excellent (1st), Very Good (2nd), Good, Fair, Poor
Choice 2: Excellent (1st), Very Good (2nd), Acceptable, Poor
Choice 3: Superior (1st), Excellent (2nd), Very Good (3rd), Good, Fair
Choice 4: Exceptional (1st), Superior (2nd), Very Good (3rd), Adequate, Poor
Choice 5: Superb (1st), Excellent (2nd), Good, Fair, Unacceptable

Finding the Best Combination

If we select:

Premiolex: Choice 3 (Superior, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair)
Cretazole: Choice 1 (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor)

This perfectly supports the skeptic because:

In Premiolex's scale, "excellent" is the 2nd best option (after Superior)
In Cretazole's scale, "very good" is the 2nd best option (after Excellent)
Both customer groups gave their service the same relative rating (2nd best)
The different terminology masks this equivalence

The Correct Answers

For Premiolex survey: Choice 3 (Superior, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair)
For Cretazole survey: Choice 1 (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor)

Common Traps to Highlight

Trap 1: Selecting scales where "excellent" is always the top rating

This wouldn't support the skeptic's position as strongly
The spokesperson's conclusion would seem more justified

Trap 2: Selecting identical scales for both surveys

This would make the comparison valid
Directly contradicts the skeptic's point about different scales

Trap 3: Focusing only on the presence of terms without considering their relative positions

The key insight is that the same relative satisfaction can have different labels
This is what makes the spokesperson's comparison invalid

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...