The "Evaluate the Argument" question type is one of the most challenging on the GMAT because it sits right between "Strengthen" and "Weaken." To solve it, you must find the missing piece of information that could swing the argument either way.
Let's break down a classic 700-level case study involving economics, logic, and a very common trap: Ignoring the Supply Side.
Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?
- (A) Whether in Vargonia there are any schools not funded by the government that offer children an education free of charge
- (B) Whether the number of qualified applicants for teaching positions in government-funded schools increases significantly during economic recessions
- (C) What the current student-teacher ratio in Vargonia's government-funded schools is
- (D) What proportion of Vargonia's workers currently hold jobs as teachers in government-funded schools
- (E) Whether in the past a number of government-funded schools in Vargonia have had student-teacher ratios well in excess of the new limit
Why Option B wins: The "Two-Sided Test"
The "Evaluate" question type is unique because the correct answer must be able to both strengthen AND weaken the argument depending on the answer (Yes or No).
Scenario 1: Answer is NO
Applicants do NOT increase.
Result: More Jobs + Same Applicants = Easier to get a job.
Impact: Conclusion is Valid.
Scenario 2: Answer is YES
Applicants increase MASSIVELY (e.g. layoffs elsewhere).
Result: More Jobs + WAY More Applicants = Harder to get a job.
Impact: Conclusion is Destroyed.
Because the answer to Option B determines the fate of the argument, it is the crucial piece of information required.