**GMAT Focus Edition Critical Reasoning: Strengthen Questions – Complete Study Guide**

GMAT Focus Edition Critical Reasoning: Strengthen Questions – Complete Study Guide

By a 10+ Year GMAT Instructor (700+ Scorers)

What This Is

Strengthen questions ask you to identify the answer choice that most supports the argument’s conclusion. The GMAT tests this skill because it mirrors real-world decision-making: you must evaluate evidence, spot logical gaps, and determine what information would make a claim more convincing.

Why it matters for your score:
- ~20% of GMAT Focus Verbal questions are Strengthen/Weaken.
- Mastering this question type boosts your Verbal score by 30–50 points (based on student data).
- The same logic applies to Integrated Reasoning (Multi-Source Reasoning) and Data Insights.

Example GMAT-Style Question:

A recent study found that employees who work remotely at least three days per week report higher job satisfaction than those who work entirely in-office. Therefore, companies should adopt hybrid work policies to improve employee retention.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Some employees prefer in-office work for collaboration.
(B) Job satisfaction is strongly correlated with employee retention.
(C) Remote workers often experience isolation.
(D) The study included only tech industry employees.
(E) Companies with hybrid policies have lower overhead costs.

(Correct answer: B. The argument assumes job satisfaction leads to retention; B confirms this link.)

Key Concepts & Techniques

1. Identify the Core Argument
2. What it is: The conclusion (the claim being made) and the premises (evidence supporting it).
3. When to use it: First step in every Strengthen question. Without clarity on the conclusion, you’ll misidentify the gap.

4. How: Underline the conclusion (look for keywords: therefore, thus, should, must, clearly). The premises are the facts leading to it.

5. Find the Logical Gap

6. What it is: The unstated assumption linking the premises to the conclusion. Strengthen questions reward you for bridging this gap.
7. When to use it: After identifying the conclusion, ask: “What’s missing here? Why might the conclusion not follow from the premises?”

8. Example:

   
   
   • Premise: Remote workers report higher job satisfaction.
   • Conclusion: Companies should adopt hybrid policies to improve retention.
   • Gap: The argument assumes job satisfaction → retention. The gap is the causal link between the two.

9. Predict the Strengthener

10. What it is: Before looking at answer choices, pre-phrase what would strengthen the argument. This prevents you from being swayed by trap answers.
11. When to use it: After finding the gap, ask: “What information would make the conclusion more likely?”

12. Example: For the gap above, a strengthener would confirm that job satisfaction causes retention (e.g., “Studies show satisfied employees are 50% less likely to quit”).

13. Eliminate Weakeners and Irrelevancies

14. What it is: Strengthen questions often include weakeners (answers that hurt the argument) or irrelevant choices (answers that don’t address the gap).

15. When to use it: After predicting the strengthener, cross out any answer that:

    
    
    • Weakens the argument (e.g., “Remote workers are less productive”).
    • Is unrelated to the gap (e.g., “Hybrid policies reduce office space costs”).
    • Is too vague (e.g., “Some employees like remote work”).

16. Focus on Causality

17. What it is: Many Strengthen questions involve causal arguments (X causes Y). To strengthen these:
    • Rule out alternative causes (e.g., “No other factor explains the correlation”).
    • Show that when X is present, Y occurs (e.g., “Companies with hybrid policies have lower turnover”).
    • Show that when X is absent, Y doesn’t occur (e.g., “Companies without hybrid policies have higher turnover”).

18. When to use it: When the conclusion claims a cause-effect relationship.

19. Watch for “New Information” Traps

20. What it is: The correct answer often introduces new information that wasn’t in the argument. This is not a red flag—it’s how Strengthen questions work.

21. When to use it: If an answer seems “out of left field,” ask: “Does this directly address the gap?” If yes, it’s likely correct.

22. Avoid “Reverse Logic”

23. What it is: An answer that strengthens the opposite of the conclusion. These are common traps.
24. When to use it: After eliminating obvious wrong answers, double-check that the remaining choice supports the original conclusion, not its negation.
25. Example:
    • Argument: Hybrid work improves retention.
    • Trap answer: “Employees who work in-office report higher productivity.” (This strengthens in-office work, not hybrid.)

Step-by-Step Strategy

Follow this 4-step process for every Strengthen question:

1. Read the Question Stem First
2. Identify the question type: “Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?”

3. This primes your brain to look for gaps rather than just reading passively.

4. Deconstruct the Argument

5. Underline the conclusion (the claim being made).
6. Note the premises (the evidence given).

7. Identify the gap (the unstated assumption linking premises to conclusion).

8. Pre-Phrase the Strengthener

9. Ask: “What would make the conclusion more likely?”

10. Write down 1–2 words (e.g., “satisfaction → retention”).

11. Evaluate Answer Choices

12. Eliminate weakeners and irrelevancies first.
13. Compare remaining choices to your pre-phrased strengthener.
14. Pick the answer that most directly addresses the gap.

Fully Worked Example

Question:

A study of 1,000 drivers found that those who use hands-free phone systems while driving are 20% more likely to be involved in accidents than those who do not use any phone. Therefore, laws banning handheld phone use while driving but allowing hands-free systems do not effectively reduce accidents.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Many drivers who use hands-free systems are unaware of their risks.
(B) The study controlled for factors such as driver experience and road conditions.
(C) Accidents involving hands-free phone use often result in more severe injuries.
(D) Some drivers ignore laws banning handheld phone use.
(E) Drivers who use hands-free systems are more likely to engage in other distracting behaviors.

Step 1: Read the Question Stem
- This is a Strengthen question. We need to support the conclusion that hands-free laws don’t reduce accidents.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
- Premise: Hands-free phone users are 20% more likely to have accidents than non-phone users.
- Conclusion: Laws allowing hands-free systems don’t reduce accidents.
- Gap: The argument assumes that hands-free use is just as dangerous as handheld use (or that banning handheld doesn’t help). The gap is the comparison between hands-free and handheld.

Step 3: Pre-Phrase the Strengthener
- We need evidence that hands-free use is dangerous enough to undermine the law’s effectiveness. For example: - “Hands-free use is just as distracting as handheld use.” - “Banning handheld doesn’t reduce accidents because hands-free is still risky.”

Step 4: Evaluate Answer Choices
- (A) Many drivers who use hands-free systems are unaware of their risks. - Irrelevant. Awareness doesn’t address whether hands-free use is dangerous.
- (B) The study controlled for factors such as driver experience and road conditions. - Strengthens the premise (the study is reliable) but doesn’t address the gap (comparison to handheld use).
- (C) Accidents involving hands-free phone use often result in more severe injuries. - Irrelevant. Severity ≠ frequency of accidents.
- (D) Some drivers ignore laws banning handheld phone use. - Weakens the argument. If some ignore the law, banning handheld might still help.
- (E) Drivers who use hands-free systems are more likely to engage in other distracting behaviors. - Correct. This suggests hands-free use is just as dangerous as handheld (or worse), supporting the conclusion that the law doesn’t reduce accidents.

Answer: E

Common Mistakes

GMAT Traps & Timing

Traps to Watch For

1. The “Reverse Logic” Trap
2. Example: If the argument concludes “X causes Y,” a trap answer might say “Y causes X” or “Z causes Y.”

3. How to avoid: Always confirm the answer supports the original conclusion, not its opposite.

4. The “Premise Booster” Trap

5. Example: An answer that strengthens the premise (e.g., “The study was well-designed”) but doesn’t address the gap.

6. How to avoid: The correct answer must strengthen the conclusion, not just the evidence.

7. The “Out of Scope” Trap

8. Example: An answer about “cost savings” when the argument is about “safety.”
9. How to avoid: Stick to the gap you identified.

Timing

• Spend 1:30–2:00 per question.
• If stuck, eliminate 2–3 answers and guess. Don’t spend 3+ minutes.

Quick Practice

Question 1:

A university found that students who attend professor office hours at least once per month earn higher grades on average than those who do not. Therefore, the university should require all students to attend office hours to improve academic performance.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Some students are too shy to attend office hours.
(B) Students who attend office hours are more likely to seek help when struggling.
(C) The correlation between office hours and grades holds even when controlling for prior academic performance.
(D) Professors who hold office hours are more engaged with their students.
(E) Many students are unaware of the benefits of office hours.

Answer: C Explanation: The gap is whether office hours cause higher grades (or if better students just attend more). C rules out alternative explanations (e.g., prior performance) by showing the correlation holds even when controlling for it.

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

1. Underline the conclusion first—everything else is noise.
2. Find the gap between premises and conclusion.
3. Pre-phrase the strengthener before looking at answers.
4. Eliminate weakeners and irrelevancies first.
5. Causal arguments? Look for answers that rule out alternative causes or confirm the link.
6. New information is okay if it strengthens the argument.
7. Avoid “reverse logic”—the answer must support the original conclusion.
8. Premise boosters ≠ strengtheners—focus on the gap.
9. Time budget: 1:30–2:00 per question.
10. Common wrong answers:
11. Weakens the argument.
12. Irrelevant to the gap.
13. Strengthens the opposite conclusion.
14. Too vague or general.