City resident: These new digital electronic billboards should be banned for light pollution since they are much too bright. Outdoor...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

City resident: These new digital electronic billboards should be banned for light pollution since they are much too bright.

Outdoor advertising spokesperson: No, that's not true. Testing with a sophisticated light meter shows that at night they throw off less light than traditional billboards that are reflectively lit. Your mistaken perception that they are brighter comes from looking directly at the light source—the screen itself.

The underlying strategy of the spokesperson's response to the resident is most analogous to the underlying strategy of which of the following?

A doctor dismisses a patient's claim to have had a heart attack, citing a cardiac enzyme blood test.

A politician rejects an accusation of perjury by denying the credibility of witness testimony.

An insurance agent rejects a claim, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support the claimant's testimony.

An investigator casts doubt on the results of a lie detector, citing the subject's report of illness during the test.

A psychologist treats a mental illness by encouraging a patient to abandon inconsistent beliefs.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
City resident: These new digital electronic billboards should be banned for light pollution since they are much too bright.	What it says: Digital billboards should be banned because they create light pollution - they're too bright What it does: Sets up the resident's position against digital billboards with a clear reason What it is: City resident's argument/complaint
Outdoor advertising spokesperson: No, that's not true.	What it says: Directly rejects the resident's claim What it does: Opens the counterargument by flatly denying the resident's position What it is: Spokesperson's initial disagreement
Testing with a sophisticated light meter shows that at night they throw off less light than traditional billboards that are reflectively lit.	What it says: Actual measurements prove digital billboards produce less light than old-style lit billboards What it does: Provides technical evidence that contradicts the resident's "too bright" claim What it is: Scientific evidence/counterpoint Visualization: Digital billboards: 5 units of light vs Traditional billboards: 8 units of light
Your mistaken perception that they are brighter comes from looking directly at the light source—the screen itself.	What it says: The resident only thinks they're brighter because they're looking right at the screen What it does: Explains why the resident is wrong - it's a perception error, not an actual brightness issue What it is: Spokesperson's explanation for the resident's mistake

Argument Flow:

The resident makes a straightforward complaint that digital billboards are too bright and should be banned. The spokesperson counters by first denying this claim, then providing scientific measurements showing digital billboards actually produce less light than traditional ones, and finally explaining that the resident's perception is mistaken because they're looking directly at the light source.

Main Conclusion:

The spokesperson concludes that digital billboards shouldn't be banned for light pollution because they actually produce less light than traditional billboards - the resident's concern is based on a mistaken perception.

Logical Structure:

The spokesperson uses a two-part strategy: (1) provide objective evidence (light meter data) that contradicts the resident's subjective experience, and (2) explain why the resident's perception is unreliable (looking directly at the light source creates a false impression). This shows the resident's concern isn't based on actual light pollution but on how they're observing the billboards.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc - Analogous Strategy: We need to identify the underlying strategy the spokesperson uses and find what it's most similar to. The spokesperson's strategy is: (1) Directly contradict the claim with objective evidence, (2) Explain that the person's perception is wrong due to a specific reason that doesn't affect the actual measurement.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve: Quality comparison (digital vs traditional billboards), Measurement precision (sophisticated light meter readings), and Perceptual explanation (looking directly at light source vs actual light output).

Strategy

We need to break down the spokesperson's argumentative approach into its core components: They use objective measurement to counter a subjective complaint, then explain why the subjective experience is misleading. We should look for scenarios where someone similarly uses technical evidence to contradict a perception-based complaint and explains the source of the misperception.

Answer Choices Explained

A doctor dismisses a patient's claim to have had a heart attack, citing a cardiac enzyme blood test.

This matches the spokesperson's strategy perfectly. The doctor uses objective technical evidence (cardiac enzyme blood test) to counter the patient's subjective claim about having had a heart attack. Just like the spokesperson used light meter data to counter the resident's perception, the doctor uses medical testing to override the patient's subjective experience. Both rely on scientific measurement to contradict perception-based claims.

A politician rejects an accusation of perjury by denying the credibility of witness testimony.

This uses a completely different strategy - attacking the credibility of witnesses rather than providing counter-evidence. The spokesperson didn't question the resident's credibility; instead, they provided technical data and explained the perceptual error. This is about undermining sources rather than using objective evidence.

An insurance agent rejects a claim, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support the claimant's testimony.

This involves claiming insufficient evidence rather than providing counter-evidence. The spokesperson didn't say there wasn't enough evidence for the resident's claim - they actively provided contrary evidence with light meter data. This is about evidence gaps rather than contradictory technical proof.

An investigator casts doubt on the results of a lie detector, citing the subject's report of illness during the test.

This questions the validity of a test method rather than using a different test to prove the opposite. The spokesperson didn't doubt the resident's observation method; they used superior measurement tools to show the opposite result. This is about test reliability rather than providing superior evidence.

A psychologist treats a mental illness by encouraging a patient to abandon inconsistent beliefs.

This is about treating mental illness by changing beliefs rather than countering claims with evidence. The spokesperson wasn't trying to cure the resident of anything - they were proving their claim wrong with data. This involves therapeutic intervention rather than evidential refutation.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...