GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 106

Arthur: Do animals have rights? Well, they have feelings, and I think if you can feel pain, you do have some rights, particularly the right not to have pain inflicted on you.
Brandon: Animals like lions would kill me if they were hungry for food. That inflicts pain on me, all right! Which of the following is the best criticism of Brandon’s response?

He assumes that because some animals kill humans, humans have a right to kill those animals.
He does not give specific examples to support his position.
He attacks Arthur rather than addressing the issue.
He takes an absolute position without allowing for exceptions.
He brings in a different issue rather than addressing the question of whether or not animals have rights.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Brandon does not directly address the issue of whether or not animals have rights. Instead, he brings in another issue — whether or not animals would kill him if they were hungry for food — and thus shifts the argument to his pain rather than the right of animals to be free of pain. Thus, the best criticism of this argument is that Brandon brings in a red herring. Brandon’s response is not based on any assumption about human beings’ right to kill animals, so choice a is incorrect. He does give one specific example (lions), so choice b is incorrect. He does not attack Arthur, so choice c is incorrect. Finally, he does not make an absolute statement including all animals, so choice d is also incorrect.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 107

People who own dangerous pets such as poisonous snakes or ferocious dogs are morally and legally responsible for their pet’s actions. If someone is hurt by such a pet, the owner should be held 100% accountable.
All of the following statements, if true, would strengthen this argument EXCEPT

the physical whereabouts of pets are completely under the control of their owners.
a pet is the legal property of a person, and people are responsible for damages inflicted by their property.
a pet is like a young child in that its whereabouts must constantly be controlled and behaviors trained and monitored.
pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors.
a dangerous pet is no different from a dangerous weapon, and it must be cared for accordingly.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

If pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors, then this undermines the conclusion that pet owners should be 100% accountable for their pets’ actions. The other choices, however, all make claims that support the argument for accountability.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 108

Since Lotta came out of her shell, she has made a lot of new friends. Which of the following is the best criticism of this statement?

Lotta may have come out of her shell because she made new friends.
Lotta may have come out of her shell because of accomplishments at her new job.
Lotta may not have very close relationships with any of these new friends.
Lotta often has periods of introversion.
Lotta is a very likeable person.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The problem with this statement is that it may reverse causation. Perhaps Lotta made new friends after she came out of her shell, but it is equally possible that Lotta’s new friends helped her come out of her shell. Lotta’s accomplishments at work may have helped her come out of her shell (choice b), but that is not a relevant criticism of the argument; it has nothing to do with the question of making friends after coming out her shell.
The level of intimacy of her new friendships (choice c) is also irrelevant to an analysis of the argument because it does not make any claims about the depth of the relationships.
If Lotta often has periods of introversion (choice d), then she also has periods of coming out of her shell, so this is not relevant (again, it does not address the cause/effect issue). If Lotta is very likeable (choice e), it might explain an ease in making new friends or the number of new friends, but it does not connect the two pieces of the statement.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 109

All across Europe, midwives are the most common choice for prenatal care and delivery. In America, however, midwives are the minority, with most women choosing obstetricians to help them deliver their babies. But using midwives could save millions of dollars a year in healthcare costs. All of the following information would be helpful in evaluating this argument EXCEPT

a comparison of the cost of an obstetrician birth and a midwife birth
a comparison of the percentage of costly procedures such as episiotomies and Caesarian sections in midwife- and obstetrician-led births
a description of the author’s experience with a midwife
a comparison of the procedures in an obstetrician birth and midwife birth
a description of how midwives are used in healthcare systems in other countries

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

All of the choices except c provide information that would help evaluate the conclusion that using midwives could save millions of dollars a year in healthcare costs. Only choice c is irrelevant. The author’s own experience with a midwife may or may not be typical and does not address the issue of whether or not midwives are more cost effective.

Reveal Solution Next Question

QUESTION: 110

Increasing the speed limit to 65 miles per hour or more on highways is dangerous and only leads to more accidents. Whenever the highway speed has been increased, accident rates have increased in that state. Maine raised its turnpike speed to 65 mph in November, and more fatal accidents occurred in December than any other month in the year. Highway fatalities in December and January combined were up 18% from November.

All of the following are valid criticisms of this argument EXCEPT

it does not explain why the speed limit was originally set at 55 mph.
it does not specify whether the accident rate increase was in accidents only on the highways where the speed limit was increased or on all highways.
it does not consider other possible causes for increases in accidents, such as winter weather driving conditions in Maine.
it only cites statistics for one state.
it does not acknowledge that speed is not the only cause of accidents.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The issue in the argument is whether increased speed limits are dangerous, so the argument should focus on proving that this is the case. The fact that the argument does not discuss why the speed limit was originally set at 55 mph is essentially irrelevant, so it is not a valid criticism of the argument. All of the other options, however, express valid criticisms and point out significant flaws in the reasoning.

Reveal Solution Next Question

GMAT GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam (page: 22) GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability Updated on: 25-Dec-2025

QUESTION: 106

Explanation:

QUESTION: 107

Explanation:

QUESTION: 108

Explanation:

QUESTION: 109

Explanation:

QUESTION: 110

Explanation:

GMAT GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam (page: 22)
GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability
Updated on: 25-Dec-2025