There are a few rarer types of questions that do not neatly fall into either the Inference or Strengthen–Weaken (Within) categories, but that definitely concern passage reasoning and that do show up in some CARS sections. These can take many different forms and all are rare, so we’ll just focus our discussion on three typical tasks.
Questions that ask about clarification concern a relationship that is very similar to support, as it is also a one-way relationship. One assertion clarifies another if the two share roughly the same meaning, but the “clarifying” part is typically more specific or exact. Because the clarifying language tends to be more precise, its truth value is easier to assess, and thus you should think of “clarifying” statements as supporting evidence for “clarified” conclusions. Approach them more or less as you would a Strengthen–Weaken (Within) question, except keep in mind that the meanings should be roughly synonymous.
With the ethics passage, for instance, you could see a Clarification question like Which of the following clarifies the author’s statement that the common argument against physician-assisted suicide rests upon the distinction between passive and active euthanasia? The answer would most likely come from one of the sentences that followed, which explained the difference between the two more concretely, including the reasons why one is supposedly permitted and the other is not. In addition to words like clarify, words like explain and reflect are used in questions to indicate this kind of relationship.
In a Clarification question, look for an answer choice that is nearly synonymous with the given claim, only that is more specific or exact.
Weakness questions are somewhat related to Inference questions, but they concern implicit weaknesses and reasonable objections to arguments discussed in the passage. Instead of the Denial Test, the best Plan is process of elimination by directly assessing the effect that answer choices have on the argument in question. The correct answer will have the most significant negative impact on the argument, perhaps even contradicting it altogether.
Answering a Weakness question is just like using the Denial Test, discussed earlier for Inference questions. The difference is that the correct answer choice will be detrimental to the arguments in the passage without being negated.
One example of a Weakness question for the ethics passage above would be Which of the following is the greatest inherent weakness in the author’s use of a thought experiment to support the main argument? This is a more complex type of Reasoning Within the Text, and it is one among a number of rarer questions that require you to appraise the strength of the author’s reasoning. The answer to this example might be the fact that thought experiments force the author to rely upon readers’ imagination and intuition, which may not always result in the same conclusion as the author intended.
Finally, by a paradox, we mean an apparent logical contradiction, a set typically consisting of two assertions that seem inconsistent, but only at first glance. These will usually include two distinct claims from the text, phrased in a way to make them sound conflicting, followed by a question like How would the author resolve this dilemma? or How might the passage account for this discrepancy? Sometimes one of the claims will be a new element, which would technically make such questions Reasoning Beyond the Text, although they should still be approached with the same strategy in this case.
The correct answer to a Paradox question must be consistent with both of the claims given in the question stem. If possible, it should also not conflict with anything that the author says elsewhere in the passage. Thus, to resolve paradoxes, you should use process of elimination, marking out any answer choice that is inconsistent with one or both of the claims (or with the passage as a whole).
A paradox is a set of two claims that appear to be inconsistent on the surface. The correct answer in a Paradox question will be consistent with both of the claims, and it will usually attempt to explain the surface inconsistencies between the two claims.