Dr. Sarah Martinez published a research study on urban air quality in 2018. The methodology section received harsh criticism from...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Dr. Sarah Martinez published a research study on urban air quality in 2018. The methodology section received harsh criticism from peer reviewer Dr. Chen, who described the data collection methods as "fundamentally flawed." Martinez revised her approach and resubmitted the study in 2020. In his second review, Dr. Chen commended the methodology as "rigorous and well-designed." This suggests that in Dr. Chen's assessment, ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
Martinez's research methodology improved significantly between 2018 and 2020.
the 2018 study had better data collection methods than the 2020 version.
Martinez should have maintained her original 2018 methodology in the revision.
the 2018 study was more comprehensive than the 2020 resubmission.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Dr. Sarah Martinez published a research study on urban air quality in 2018." |
|
| "The methodology section received harsh criticism from peer reviewer Dr. Chen, who described the data collection methods as 'fundamentally flawed.'" |
|
| "Martinez revised her approach and resubmitted the study in 2020." |
|
| "In his second review, Dr. Chen commended the methodology as 'rigorous and well-designed.'" |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: The passage presents evidence of Dr. Chen's changing evaluation of Martinez's research methodology from negative to positive across two different versions.
Argument Flow: We start with Martinez's 2018 study receiving harsh criticism from Dr. Chen. Martinez then revises her methodology and resubmits in 2020. Dr. Chen's second review is dramatically more positive, praising the very aspect he previously criticized.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The evidence shows Dr. Chen went from calling Martinez's methodology "fundamentally flawed" in 2018 to calling it "rigorous and well-designed" in 2020
- Since Martinez revised her approach between these two evaluations, the logical inference is that Dr. Chen believes the methodology got better
- The correct answer should reflect that Chen views the revised methodology as an improvement over the original version
Martinez's research methodology improved significantly between 2018 and 2020.
✓ Correct
- This directly matches our prethinking - Chen's contrasting evaluations logically suggest he believes the methodology improved
- The timeline supports this: harsh criticism then revision then praise indicates improvement in Chen's view
the 2018 study had better data collection methods than the 2020 version.
✗ Incorrect
- This contradicts the evidence completely - Chen praised the 2020 version, not the 2018 version
- Goes against the clear progression from negative to positive assessment
Martinez should have maintained her original 2018 methodology in the revision.
✗ Incorrect
- This makes no sense given that Chen criticized the original 2018 methodology as fundamentally flawed
- Why would Chen want Martinez to keep methodology he called flawed?
the 2018 study was more comprehensive than the 2020 resubmission.
✗ Incorrect
- The passage gives no information about comprehensiveness - Chen's comments focus specifically on methodology quality, not scope
- This introduces a concept not discussed in the passage