Critical Reasoning questions are composed of short reading passages, typically just one paragraph long, followed by a series of questions about the author’s argument. You should expect to see anywhere from two to four Critical Reasoning questions within the two GRE Verbal sections.

Each Critical Reasoning question contains a passage, the question, and 5 answer choices.

The Passage

Critical Reasoning passages tend to be short (usually 20–100 words) and often take the form of an argument. The subjects they consider rarely fall into neat categories, and generally reference hypothetical scenarios. Read your passages carefully, pay attention to the language employed, and interpret that language literally. It is important to be precise when reading the passage for Critical Reasoning questions. As you’ll see in the pages to come, the difference between getting a Critical Reasoning question correct and falling for a trap answer often lies in the particulars of the passage’s wording.

The Question

There are 8 types of Critical Reasoning questions, each of which involves a different task with respect to the passage. Most questions test your ability to evaluate the reasoning employed in an argument, but some test your ability to reason on the basis of information. This chapter will outline the different types of questions you will see, how to identify them, and what to look for in the passage based on the type of question. So much of your evaluation of the passage depends on what the question is asking you to identify in the passage. Because of this, you should read the question first, and then read the passage.

The Answer Choices

All things verbal come down to Process of Elimination, and Critical Reasoning is no exception. Each question type for Critical Reasoning questions has its own set of POE tools. These tools are based off the common trap answers constructed by the test makers. Because the question types all vary, the common trap answers and POE tools to employ also vary based on question type. After mastering the different types of questions, you’ll learn how answer choices for those question types are constructed and, with enough practice, you’ll be able to spot a bad answer choice with confidence.

HOW GRE ARGUMENTS ARE CONSTRUCTED

Most Critical Reasoning passages take the form of arguments in which the writer tries to convince the reader of something. GRE arguments consist of three connected parts:

Conclusions

A conclusion is the primary claim made in an argument. The easiest way to identify the conclusion is to ask yourself what its author wants you to believe. Here’s an example:

During the past 10 years, advertising revenues for the magazine True Investor have fallen by thirty-percent. The magazine has failed to attract new subscribers, and newsstand sales are at an all-time low. Thus, sweeping changes to the editorial board will be necessary for the magazine to survive.

In the argument above, the conclusion is found in the last sentence, where the author attempts to persuade the reader that sweeping changes to the editorial board will be necessary for the magazine to survive.

In some cases, indicator words can help you to find the conclusion. These include:

Indicator words can help you to identify the parts of an argument, but not every argument uses them. However, almost every argument has a conclusion of some kind. A conclusion can be a plan or course of action, an argument, a statement of supposed truth, or any number of resolutions to the contents of the passage.

Learning to identify the conclusion is the first important step in evaluating the passage. Once you’ve identified the conclusion, the remaining information in the passage should reveal evidence that is used in support of the conclusion.

Practice: Identifying Conclusions

Underline the conclusions of the arguments in the following Critical Reasoning passages. Answers can be found in Part V.

1 of 5

Despite the support of the president, it is unlikely that the new defense bill will pass. A bipartisan group of 15 senators has announced that it does not support the legislation.

2 of 5

The earliest known grass fossils date from approximately 55 million years ago. Dinosaurs most likely disappeared from the earth around 60 million years ago. Based on this evidence, as well as fossilized remains of dinosaur teeth that indicate the creatures were more suited to eating ferns and palms, scientists have concluded that grass was not a significant part of the dinosaur diet.

3 of 5

Automaker X has lost over 2 billion dollars this year due to rising costs, declining automobile sales, and new governmental regulations. Because of the company’s poor financial situation, it has asked its employees to pay more for health care and to accept a pay cut. However, the workers at automaker X are threatening to go on strike. If that happens, automaker X will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy.

4 of 5

The rise of obesity among citizens of country Y has been linked to a variety of health problems. In response to this situation, the country’s largest health organization has called for food manufacturers to help combat the problem. Since the leading members of the nation’s food industry have agreed to provide healthier alternatives, reduce sugar and fat content, and reduce advertisements for unhealthy foods, it is likely that country Y will experience a decrease in obesity-related health problems.

5 of 5

Recent advances in technology have led to a new wave of “smart” appliances, including refrigerators that note when food supplies are low and place an order at the grocery store, washing machines that automatically adjust the wash cycle and temperature based upon the clothes in the machine, and doorknobs that can identify the house owner and automatically open the door. A technology expert predicts that, due to these new innovations, machines will soon outnumber humans as the number-one users of the Internet.

Premises

The premises of an argument include any reasons, statistics, or other evidence provided in support of the conclusion. In the case of GRE arguments, you must accept the truth of the premises, whether you agree with them or not. The easiest way to identify the premises is to ask what information the author has provided to justify the truth of the conclusion.

In the argument above, the premises can be found in the first two sentences, where the author provides three pieces of evidence in support of the conclusion: advertising revenues for the magazine True Investor have fallen by thirty-percent, the magazine has failed to attract new subscribers, and newsstand sales are at an all-time low.

Sometimes you’ll see indicator words that can help you to find the premises. These include:

Practice: Finding the Premise

For each of the following arguments, identify the premise or premises that support the conclusion. (Remember, you already found the conclusions in the exercise on this page.) Answers can be found in Part V.

1 of 5

Despite the support of the president, it is unlikely that the new defense bill will pass. A bipartisan group of 15 senators has announced that it does not support the legislation.

Conclusion:

Why?

Premise:

2 of 5

The earliest known grass fossils date from approximately 55 million years ago. Dinosaurs most likely disappeared from the Earth around 60 million years ago. Based on this evidence, as well as fossilized remains of dinosaur teeth that indicate the creatures were more suited to eating ferns and palms, scientists have concluded that grass was not a significant part of the dinosaur diet.

Conclusion:

Why?

Premise:

3 of 5

Conclusion:

Why?

Premise:

4 of 5

Conclusion:

Why?

Premise:

5 of 5

Conclusion:

Why?

Premise:

Assumptions

Assumptions are unstated premises on which the author relies to prove his or her conclusion. Even well-reasoned arguments rest on assumptions; because it’s impossible to say everything, some things must go unsaid. Therefore, assumptions play a crucial role in the structure of an argument, bridging gaps in reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.

The argument above assumes that the editorial board caused the problems now attributed to the magazine. If something other than the editorial board were responsible—had the local population declined by thirty percent, for example—then sweeping changes to the board might do little to improve the magazine’s financial situation. In that case, the connection between the premises (the magazine’s problems) and the conclusion (changes to the editorial board) would fall apart. The reader would no longer be persuaded that changes to the editorial board will be necessary for the magazine to survive. The argument would collapse.

The easiest way to identify an assumption is to distinguish an argument’s conclusion from its premises. Then, ask what additional information is required to link the conclusion to the premises.

Practice: Locating Assumptions

For each of the following Critical Reasoning questions, identify the conclusion and the premise. Then note what assumption is required to make the argument work. Answers can be found in Part V.

1 of 4

City University recently announced the retirement of Professor Jones. Professor Jones is a leading biologist and widely published author and her presence was a major factor in many students’ decisions to attend City University. The University predicts no decline in enrollment, however, because it plans to hire two highly credentialed biology professors to replace Professor Jones.

Conclusion:

Premise:

Assumption:

2 of 4

It is unjust to charge customers under the age of 25 more to rent a car than those over the age of 25. After all, most states allow people as young as 16 to have a driver’s license and all states allow 18-year-olds the right to vote.

Conclusion:

Premise:

Assumption:

3 of 4

It is easy to demonstrate that extraterrestrial life exists by simply looking at our own solar system. In our solar system, there are eight planets and at least one of them obviously has life on it. Thus, roughly 12.5% of planets in the universe should have life on them.

Conclusion:

Premise:

Assumption:

4 of 4

State A is facing a serious budget shortfall for the upcoming year. Recent polls indicate that 58% of voters in Township B approve of a proposed 2-cent gasoline tax in order to make up the deficit. It is clear, therefore, that the leaders of State A should institute the gas tax.

Conclusion:

Premise:

Assumption:

Gaps

One common way to identify assumptions is to look for gaps in the reasoning. In many cases, gaps in reasoning are indicated by gaps in language. Look for words or phrases in the conclusion that do not come from the premises. Identify an assumption in the following example:

Cream cheese contains half as many calories per tablespoon as does butter or margarine. Therefore, a bagel with cream cheese is more healthful than is a bagel with butter.

First, find the conclusion. The word “therefore” gives the conclusion away: a bagel with cream cheese is more healthful than is a bagel with butter.

Second, find the premises. What information does the author provide to support the conclusion? The premise states that cream cheese contains half as many calories per tablespoon.

Third, look for shifts in language between the premise and conclusion. The premise compares the calorie content of a tablespoon of cream cheese to that of a tablespoon of butter or margarine. The conclusion introduces the word “healthful,” which does not appear in the premise. This shift in the argument’s language is indicative of a gap in reasoning—the argument leaps from a thing that has fewer calories per tablespoon to a thing that is more healthful. Therefore, this argument rests on the assumption that a food with fewer calories is a food that is more healthful.

Although most Critical Reasoning passages consist of three basic parts—conclusions, premises, and assumptions—some passages also include extraneous ideas, background information, or opposing points of view. The efficiency with which you identify assumptions depends in large part on the accuracy with which you identify conclusions and premises, so don’t be distracted by non-essential information.

COMMON REASONING PATTERNS

Like the other question formats on the GRE, Critical Reasoning questions tend to be predictable. While you’ll never see the same question twice, many Critical Reasoning passages employ similar patterns of reasoning. Learning to recognize these patterns provides you with another means of identifying assumptions.

Not every GRE argument models one of the common reasoning patterns, so you’ll sometimes still need to look for shifts in language. However, when one of the common reasoning patterns is present, it can help you to locate information needed to strengthen or weaken an argument. Each of the five common patterns involves its own standard assumption or assumptions. Learning to recognize these patterns, and the assumptions they incorporate, will help you to identify unstated presuppositions and pinpoint an argument’s flaws.

Causal Reasoning Patterns

Causal reasoning is the most common type of reasoning you’ll encounter in GRE arguments. Test writers are fond of causal arguments, and you’re likely to see several of them on the GRE. In a causal argument, the premises usually state that two things happened, from which the author concludes that one thing caused the other. Consider the following simple example:

A study indicated that adults who listen to classical music regularly are less likely to have anxiety disorders. Clearly, classical music calms the nerves and reduces anxiety.

The author of this argument concludes that classical music calms the nerves and reduces anxiety. This conclusion is based on a study indicating that adults who listen to classical music regularly are less likely to have anxiety disorders. Thus, the premise posits a correlation between two things—exposure to classical music and reduced likelihood of anxiety disorders—and the conclusion makes a leap from correlation to causation.

The argument assumes that there is nothing other than classical music that caused study participants to experience fewer anxiety disorders and that it is not a coincidence that adults who listened to classical music were less likely to have anxiety disorders.

The first standard assumption suggests that classical music, and only classical music, caused participants in the study to experience fewer anxiety disorders. But what if something else was responsible? The passage doesn’t rule out the possibility that study participants used anxiety reducing medication, or that they simply happened to be calm people to begin with. In neither of these cases would it follow that classical music calms the nerves and reduces anxiety. Thus, the argument must assume that a causal relationship exists.

The second standard assumption denies that the correlation between classical music and anxiety is a coincidence. But what if a different study indicated that adults who listen to classical music regularly were more likely to have anxiety disorders? In that case, it no longer follows that classical music calms the nerves and reduces anxiety—on the contrary, the counter-example suggests that the first study’s results were coincidental. Thus, the argument must assume that the correlation between classical music and lower anxiety is not a coincidence.

When you spot an argument that employs a causal reasoning pattern, remember that the argument relies on two assumptions: first, there’s no other cause; and second, it’s not a coincidence.

Planning Patterns

Many GRE arguments introduce plans that are designed to solve problems: a municipal government’s plan to improve water quality, a transit authority’s plan to reduce traffic congestion, or a town board’s plan to increase voter turnout. The premises of planning arguments describe what the plan is supposed to accomplish and how it is supposed to work. For example:

During the past 5 years, Meridian Township has seen a dramatic rise in crime. As a result, Meridian’s police force plans to install video surveillance cameras at major intersections in neighborhoods that suffer the worst crime rates. Clearly, the crime rate in Meridian Township will drop.

Consider this argument in terms of its parts. Meridian Township has a problem: a dramatic rise in crime. To address this problem, the police force plans to install video surveillance cameras. These are the premises of the argument because they outline the plan for addressing the problem. The argument concludes that, as a result of instituting the plan, the crime rate will drop. In general, the conclusion of an argument that employs the planning pattern can simply be expressed: do the plan.

Evaluating an argument with a planning reasoning pattern will revolve around the plan itself. For instance, what if there is a problem with the plan to reduce crime by installing video cameras at major intersections? After all, crime is not limited to major intersections. Perhaps the cameras will malfunction or produce poor quality images. Perhaps criminals will simply relocate to neighborhoods without cameras. In these cases, our confidence in the conclusion is shaken. On the basis of the premises alone, it no longer seems to follow that the crime rate will drop. Thus, in order for the argument to “work,” its author must assume that installing the cameras reduces crime. In other words, there’s no problem with the plan. A question could ask to identify a potential problem with the plan, or to strengthen the plan with the addition of some other fact.

No matter what the question asks, when you encounter an argument that employs a planning pattern, remember the standard assumption at play: there’s no problem with the plan.

Sampling Patterns

Arguments that exhibit a sampling pattern are less common than causal or planning arguments. In a sampling argument, the author reaches a general conclusion about a population based on evidence about some members of the population. Sampling arguments assume that a smaller group is typical of a larger group and accurately reflects the relevant characteristics or feelings of the larger group.

Contrary to popular belief, football fans overwhelmingly approve of the decisions made by the administrative staffs of their local teams. We know this to be true because a large group of fans leaving a stadium expressed admiration for their teams’ coaches and coordinators in an interview last week.

The author of this argument concludes that football fans overwhelmingly approve of the decisions made by the administrative staffs of their local teams. This conclusion is based on the premise that a large group of fans leaving a stadium expressed admiration for their teams’ coaches and coordinators in an interview last week. Thus, the conclusion makes a leap from the opinion of one group of fans at a particular moment to the opinion of football fans in general.

When you encounter a sampling reasoning pattern, look for reasons why the sample itself is either representative or not. What if the opinion of the interviewed group of football fans isn’t representative of the opinions of football fans in general? Perhaps the interviewed fans attended a game their team won, and perhaps their local team has long enjoyed a winning record. It does not follow from this that fans of every team approve of the decisions made by their team’s administrative staff. To properly link the argument’s conclusion to its premise, the author must assume that the opinions of interviewed fans accurately reflect those of football fans in general.

When you run into an argument that employs a sampling pattern, remember that the argument relies on the assumption that a sample is representative of a larger population.

Interpretation of Evidence Patterns

In some GRE arguments, the author understands the conclusion to be synonymous with one or more of the premises. In other words, information in the premises is interpreted to mean information in the conclusion. These arguments exhibit the interpretation of evidence pattern.

One particularly common instance of this pattern involves the misinterpretation of statistical data. Not every argument that incorporates statistics is an interpretation of evidence argument, but arguments that exhibit this pattern frequently involve statistics. Most often, the argument confuses percentages with actual values.

Local grocer: Ninety percent of customers bought store brand soup last winter, but only eighty percent bought store brand soup this winter. Obviously, more customers bought store brand soup last winter.

The author concludes that more customers bought store brand soup last winter. This conclusion is based on the premise that ninety percent of customers bought store brand soup last winter, but only eighty percent bought store brand soup this winter. The premise describes a change in the percentage of customers who bought store brand soup, and the conclusion leaps from percentages to actual numbers.

What if there’s another way to interpret the data? If 100 customers visited the grocer last winter, and ninety percent bought soup, then 90 bought soup last winter. But if 200 customers visited the grocer this winter, and eighty percent bought soup, then 160 bought soup this winter. In this case, it no longer follows that more people bought soup last winter—the author misinterprets the statistical data.

When you come across an interpretation of evidence pattern, the argument most likely relies on the standard assumption that there’s no other way to interpret the evidence.

Analogy Patterns

Reasoning by analogy is relatively rare on the GRE, but that doesn’t mean you won’t see arguments by analogy. These arguments characteristically assume that what is appropriate in one case is also appropriate in another. They typically rely on the assumption that two things are similar enough to sustain a comparison. Here is a simple example:

Using this line of products has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Therefore, you should stop using this line of products.

The author concludes that you should stop using this line of products. This conclusion is based on the premise that this line of products has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. The premise concerns lab animals, and the conclusion leaps to humans. Thus, the argument relies on the assumption that humans and lab animals are similar: what causes cancer in laboratory animals also causes cancer in humans.

What if humans are significantly different from laboratory animals? For example, if a feature of human physiology not shared by lab animals prevented the growth of cancers in humans who used the products, it no longer follows that you should stop using the products.

When you encounter an argument that employs an analogy pattern, it probably relies on the assumption that one thing is similar to another in some relevant way.

THE BASIC APPROACH TO CRITICAL REASONING QUESTIONS

Critical Reasoning questions come in eight flavors. The majority of the questions are assumption, weaken, strengthen, or inference questions. However, there are some minor question types, such as resolve/explain, evaluate, ID the reasoning, or flaw questions, of which you should be aware. Each of these question types has its own unique task and common trap answers.

Most Critical Reasoning questions present you with an argument, but not all questions involve arguments. In fact, some Critical Reasoning passages don’t look like arguments at all. In order to master the Critical Reasoning format, you need a basic approach that can be applied to any Critical Reasoning question you encounter, no matter what kind of question it is.

The Basic Approach: Critical Reasoning Questions

Step 1: Identify the Question

The surest way to improve performance and boost confidence in your Critical Reasoning ability is to take control of your approach to Critical Reasoning questions. Every question includes a word or phrase that can help you to identify what kind of question it is, and each question type involves a unique task with respect to the passage. Not all tasks are created equally, so it’s important to know what’s required of you.

Your knowledge of the question type should inform your approach, suggesting what kind of information to look for in the passage and what kind of answers to avoid. For now, we’ll introduce the different question types, saving a more detailed discussion for later in the chapter.

Assumption Questions

Assumptions are necessary but invisible parts of a passage that bridge gaps in reasoning between an argument’s premises and conclusion. Here’s where all that practice identifying the parts of an argument really begins to pay off. Simply put, assumption questions ask you to identify an unstated premise on which an argument depends.

Forms of indicator words such as presupposition, expectation, and assumption can alert you to the fact that you’ve encountered an assumption question.

Weaken Questions

Weaken questions ask you to find a reason why the information in the passage could be wrong, or is incomplete. The vast majority of weaken questions require you to undermine the conclusion by attacking one of the argument’s assumptions. Most commonly, the real job when answering weaken questions is not to attack the conclusion, but to attack the way the conclusion follows from the premises.

Forms of indicator words and phrases such as weaken, undermine, and cast doubt can help you to spot a weaken question.

Strengthen Questions

Strengthen questions require you to reinforce an argument’s conclusion. This is usually accomplished by strengthening one of the argument’s assumptions. In order to answer a strengthen question with confidence, therefore, you must first identify an assumption. Once the pivotal assumption has been found, your job is to strengthen it—support the conclusion by strengthening the assumption.

Forms of indicator words such as strengthen, support, and justify can help you to recognize a strengthen question.

Inference Questions

Inference questions are the most commonly confusing type of critical reasoning question. The question appears to be asking for you to determine what the author of the argument is thinking or, as the name of the question type suggests, what can be inferred from the information in the passage.

Remember that the GRE cannot ask you for information that is not provided. Therefore, inference questions are typically just a test of reasoning and reading comprehension. The correct answer must be definitively provable based on the information provided in the passage. When presented with an inference question, you need to determine what it is that you know, without ambiguity, based on the information in the passage.

Forms of indicator words such as inference, suggest, and imply can help you spot an inference question.

Resolve/Explain Questions

Some Critical Reasoning questions ask you to resolve an apparent discrepancy or explain a paradoxical situation. The passages that accompany these questions almost never resemble arguments. Like inference passages, they merely present you with information. Resolve/explain questions ask how two seemingly incongruous statements can be true at the same time. Clearly state the two ideas that seem to be opposed, and then select the answer that allows both ideas to be true.

Resolve/Explain questions can be easier to recognize because they include forms of the word resolve or explain. Forms of indicator words such as paradox and discrepancy can also help you identify resolve/explain questions.

Evaluate Questions

Evaluate questions target your ability to spot a question (or test) that could be answered (or performed) to evaluate or assess an argument. Your job is to identify the question that, if answered, would allow you to test the argument’s key assumption. Thus, evaluate questions are similar to strengthen and weaken questions in that they first require you to identify an unstated premise. However, once the key assumption has been found, your task is not to weaken or strengthen it, but to identify the test that could help determine whether the argument is weak or strong.

Forms of indicator words such as evaluate and assess can help you to recognize an evaluate question.

Identify the Reasoning Questions

Occasionally, a Critical Reasoning question will ask you to identify the method, technique, or strategy used by the author of an argument, or to describe the roles played by bolded phrases in an argument. ID the reasoning questions concern the relationships that exist between an argument’s parts. Before you can answer a question about that relationship, you must first identify those parts. Distinguish the argument’s conclusion from its premises, and then select the answer that accurately describes the structure of the argument.

Forms of indicator words such as technique, strategy, method, and by can help you to spot an ID the reasoning question.

Flaw Questions

Flaw questions ask you to describe what went wrong in an argument. The question stem already acknowledges that you’re dealing with a bad argument. Your job is to identify its vulnerability. Flaw questions tend to resemble a blend of the ID the reasoning and weaken question types. Select the answer that accurately describes a vulnerability in the argument’s reasoning.

To identify a flaw question, look for the words vulnerable, criticism, and flaw.

Step 2: Work the Argument

After you’ve read a Critical Reasoning question, read the accompanying passage. Allow your knowledge of the question type to guide you to relevant information.

Step 3: Predict What the Answer Should Do

Just as your knowledge of the question type can help you to identify relevant information in a Critical Reasoning passage, your knowledge of the question type can help you to recognize the characteristics of the answer you’re looking for.

Predicting the answer to a Critical Reasoning question is often quite difficult. Predicting what the answer should do is usually easier. Before turning to the answers, think about what the correct answer needs to accomplish based on the question type and information in the argument. In this way, you continue to exercise control over a question as you move from information gathering to answer selection.

Step 4: Use POE to Find the Answer

This is the last step in the basic approach to Critical Reasoning questions. You’ve done most of the work required to answer the question. All that remains is to select and confirm your answer. You’re already armed with a sense of what the correct answer needs to accomplish. Now, supplement that understanding with an efficient, effective process for weeding out bad answers and avoiding traps—tempting answers that are nevertheless incorrect.

Just as your knowledge of question types can help you find relevant information in a passage and predict what the correct answer should do, it can also help you to narrow your search for the correct answer by enabling you to quickly eliminate answers that are flawed. You’ve read about the characteristics of good answers. It’s time to consider the characteristics of poor answers. Each Critical Reasoning question type has its own set of attractor answers that you will learn to anticipate. GRE arguments are often quite specific, so read them carefully and interpret them literally. Pay close attention to the language used in arguments and answer choices.

Assumption questions ask you for the unstated premise in the argument. Correct answers link conclusions to the premises that support them, so ask how each answer affects the author’s claim. When you think you’ve found the correct answer, apply the Negation Test. Negate your preferred answer, and if your belief in the argument’s conclusion isn’t affected, the answer is incorrect. Avoid answers that:

Weaken questions ask you to select the answer that disrupts the link between the premises and the conclusion. Ask yourself how each choice affects the author’s claim. Eliminate answers that:

Strengthen questions ask you to select the answer that reinforces the link between the premises and the conclusion. Ask yourself how each choice affects the author’s claim. Eliminate answers that:

Inference questions ask for the answer choice that follows necessarily from the facts in the passage. The answers to inference questions generally don’t stray far from the information provided, so look to eliminate answers that require additional assumptions. Avoid answers that:

Resolve/Explain questions ask for the answer that resolves an apparent conflict between two ideas, or that explains the conflict away. When you consider the answer choices, adhere closely to the opposing ideas. Avoid answers that:

Evaluate questions ask you to select the answer that allows the strength or weakness of an argument to be determined. Incorrect answers offer new information that does not connect the argument’s conclusion to its premises in a meaningful way. Eliminate answers that:

Identify the reasoning questions ask you to find the answer that accurately describes the structure of an argument. Avoid answers that:

Flaw questions ask you to choose the answer that accurately describes a flaw in the structure of an argument. Watch out for answers that describe the argument faithfully, but neglect to mention a flaw. Eliminate answers that:

CRITICAL REASONING PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Now that you’ve been introduced to the parts of a GRE argument, the reasoning patterns typical of GRE arguments, and the basic approach to Critical Reasoning questions, it’s time to work through some guided example questions and bolster your understanding of the Critical Reasoning question format.

Assumption Question

Most people believe that gold and platinum are the most valuable commodities. To the true entrepreneur, however, gold and platinum are less valuable than is the knowledge of opportunities. Thus, in the world of high finance, information is the most valuable commodity.

The author of the passage above makes which of the following assumptions?

Gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities.

Entrepreneurs are not like most people.

The value of information is incalculably high.

Information about business opportunities is accurate and leads to increased wealth.

Only entrepreneurs feel that information is the most valuable commodity.

The question asks for the assumption made by the author, so this is an assumption question.

An assumption supports the conclusion of an argument, so when you read the passage, look for the conclusion. The word “thus” in the passage’s final sentence gives it away: in the world of high finance, information is the most valuable commodity.

Now determine what information in the passage is in support of the conclusion. Two pieces of information are provided in support of the conclusion. One group of people—most people—believe that gold and platinum are the most valuable commodities. Another group—true entrepreneurs—believe that gold and platinum are less valuable than is the knowledge of opportunities.

From the opinions of two groups of people, the author concludes that the opinion of one group is to be preferred, but the passage doesn’t say why. Therefore, it’s likely that the correct answer will explain why the opinion of the true entrepreneur is to be preferred. With that in mind, you’re ready to attack the answer choices:

Gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities.

This answer appears to support the conclusion. If gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities, there’s a chance that information is. By itself, however, the idea that gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities doesn’t mean information is the most valuable commodity. This assumption provides no reason why the author should agree with the true entrepreneur; it doesn’t link the argument’s premises to its conclusion. Eliminate (A).

Entrepreneurs are not like most people in other careers.

This answer choice doesn’t tell you anything you don’t already know: if the true entrepreneur doesn’t share the opinion of most people, then entrepreneurs aren’t like most people (at least not in the way they value commodities). In any case, this answer doesn’t provide a reason to favor the opinion of the true entrepreneur. Eliminate (B).

The value of information is incalculably high.

Be wary of the extreme language in this answer choice. The author needn’t assume the value of information is incalculable in order to believe that it’s the most valuable commodity. Moreover, while the value of many commodities might be incalculable, it doesn’t follow from this that information is most valuable. Eliminate (C).

Information about business opportunities is accurate and leads to increased wealth.

This answer links the argument’s conclusion to its premises by providing a reason to side with the true entrepreneur. To check whether this assumption is required by the argument, apply the Negation Test. If information isn’t accurate and doesn’t lead to increased wealth, it’s unclear why the author believes it to be most valuable. Negating this answer disrupts the argument, so keep (D).

Only entrepreneurs feel that information is the most valuable commodity.

This answer is out of scope. It doesn’t matter who believes information to be most valuable. What matters is why the author believes it to be most valuable. Eliminate (E).

Weaken Question

Given the current economic climate, universal healthcare is an impossibility in the United States. More than half of all U.S. households report feeling overwhelmed by expenses, and many people are struggling to find additional sources of income. Funding such a massive program would require significant tax increases, adding to the financial burden of many individuals. The employer-sponsored healthcare system currently in place keeps taxes low, protecting our nation’s economy.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

Many U.S. citizens enjoy sizeable tax breaks for medical expenses.

Universal healthcare would reduce the financial burden on employers, resulting in significant job growth and wage increases.

A majority of profitable, private health insurers have indicated that they expect to increase their payrolls in the coming quarter.

Pharmaceutical companies have fewer incentives to innovate new drugs in a universal healthcare system.

Most U.S. citizens depend on their employers for health coverage and could not afford comparable coverage under the current system.

Let’s break this argument down into its core components. The author concludes that universal healthcare is an impossibility in the United States. Why? Because Funding such a massive program would require significant tax increases, and more than half of all US households already report feeling overwhelmed by expenses….

Did you spot the gap in the argument’s reasoning? The premises refer to the financial burden faced by Americans and to the costs associated with universal healthcare. The conclusion leaps from the cost of such a system to its impossibility. This shift in language exposes a gap in the author’s reasoning. Bridging this gap requires an assumption that links the cost of universal healthcare to its impossibility. We know what the correct answer needs to do, and we have a good idea how it might get done. Let’s turn to the answer choices.

Many US citizens enjoy sizeable tax breaks for medical expenses.

Under the current healthcare system, many people are compensated for medical expenses via tax breaks. However, there’s no information about what will happen to these tax breaks under a universal healthcare system. This answer touches on the financial problem mentioned in the premises, but because it doesn’t link this problem to the impossibility of instituting universal healthcare, it can’t be used to weaken the argument. This choice is out of scope, so eliminate (A).

Universal healthcare would reduce the financial burden on employers, resulting in significant job growth and wage increases.

This answer suggests that universal healthcare might lead to positive financial outcomes. If the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh its costs, then those costs don’t contribute to the impossibility of universal healthcare. This choice breaks the link between the cost of universal healthcare and its impossibility, so keep (B).

A majority of profitable, private health insurers have indicated that they expect to increase their payrolls in the coming quarter.

Are the plans of private health insurers to increase their payrolls relevant to the argument we identified? No, what private insurers do with their payrolls has no bearing on the argument that universal healthcare is impossible because it’s expensive. Choice (C) is out of scope. Eliminate it.

Pharmaceutical companies have fewer incentives to innovate in a universal healthcare system.

If drug companies have fewer incentives to innovate, then there’s evidence to suggest universal healthcare might be a bad idea. This answer addresses the impossibility of universal healthcare by introducing another reason not to pursue it, but that reason doesn’t link the impossibility of universal healthcare to its cost. Eliminate (D).

Most US citizens depend on their employers for health coverage and could not afford comparable coverage under the current system.

This answer acknowledges the high cost of healthcare under the current system. However, the argument concerns the cost of instituting a universal healthcare system, not the cost of the current system, which is out of scope. Eliminate (E).

Psychologists have just completed an extensive study of recently divorced parents in order to determine which factors contributed most to the dissolution of the marriage. The researchers found that in a great majority of the cases of failed marriages, the couples ate, on average, fewer than 10 meals per week with each other. From this data, the psychologists have determined that a failure to spend time together during meal times is a major factor leading to divorce.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the researchers’ hypothesis?

Many couples who have long and successful marriages eat together fewer than ten times per week.

Most of the couples in the study who were unable to share meals with each other worked outside of the home.

People who lack a regular dining schedule tend to have more disorders and illnesses of the digestive system.

Couples in the study who reported that they ate together more than ten times per week also indicated that they tended to perceive their relationships with their spouses as healthy.

In many cases, people in unhappy marriages tend to express their displeasure by avoiding contact with their partners when possible.

The question asks you to identify which answer choice casts the most doubt on the researchers’ hypothesis, so this is a weaken question.

Begin by identifying the conclusion and premise. The conclusion of the argument is the psychologists have determined that a failure to spend time together during meal times is a major factor leading to divorce. The premise of the argument is that researchers found that in a great majority of the cases of failed marriages, the couples ate, on average, fewer than 10 meals per week with each other.

This argument exhibits a causal reasoning pattern. The standard assumptions of causal reasoning patterns are that there is no other cause and its not a coincidence. In this case, there is no other cause that links not spending time together during meal times and divorce, and it’s not a coincidence that couples who get divorced eat fewer than 10 meals per week with each other. Because this is a weaken question, the correct answer will likely provide evidence that there is another cause for the relationship between not eating together and divorce or that the relationship is a coincidence.

Many couples who have long and successful marriages eat together fewer than ten times per week.

This answer choice is out of scope. The argument is concerned with divorced couples. This answer choice focuses on married couples. This does not weaken the argument because it could be true that couples in successful marriages and unsuccessful marriages eat together fewer than ten times per week. Eliminate (A).

Most of the couples in the study who were unable to share meals with each other worked outside of the home.

This choice is out of scope. Where the couples worked does not weaken the argument, as the argument is concerned with how many times the couples ate together and divorce rates. Eliminate (B).

People who lack a regular dining schedule tend to have more disorders and illnesses of the digestive system.

The relative health of people’s digestive system’s is not the focus of the argument, so this answer choice is out of scope. Eliminate (C).

Couples in the study who reported that they ate together more than ten times per week also indicated that they tended to perceive their relationships with their spouses as healthy.

This choice concerns couples…who reported that they ate together more than ten times per week. This group of people is not the focus of the argument, so this answer choice is out of scope. Eliminate (D).

In many cases, people in unhappy marriages tend to express their displeasure by avoiding contact with their partners when possible.

This choice provides an alternative reason why divorced couples infrequently are meals together. If the couples are intentionally avoiding contact with each other because they are unhappy, then they’ll end up eating fewer meals together. This casts doubt on the claim that there is a causal relationship between the number of times couples eat together and their likelihood of divorce.

Strengthen Question

Many countries have recently proposed adopting an all-volunteer army. This policy was tried on a limited basis in a handful of countries several years ago and was a miserable failure. The level of education of the volunteers was unacceptably low, while levels of drug use and crime soared among army personnel. Should these nations trust their national defense to a volunteer army? The answer is clearly “No.”

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the most support for the claim that an all-volunteer army should not be implemented?

The population’s level of education has risen since the first time an all-volunteer army was tried.

The proposal was made by an organization called Citizens for Peace.

The first attempt to create a volunteer army was carried out according to the same plan now under proposal and under the same conditions as those that exist today.

A volunteer army would be less expensive than an army that relies on the draft.

Armies are smaller today than they were when a volunteer army was last proposed.

The question asks for the statement that provides the most support for the claim, so this is a strengthen question. Begin by distinguishing the argument’s conclusion from its premises, and then find the assumption.

The conclusion of the argument is easy to identify because it’s stated in the question stem: an all-volunteer army should not be implemented. As you read the passage, be on the lookout for premises that support the author’s claim.

The author provides only one piece of evidence to suggest that an all-volunteer army shouldn’t be implemented: it was tried on a limited basis several years ago and was a miserable failure. According to the argument, we shouldn’t implement an all-volunteer army now because it didn’t work out then. This argument exhibits the analogy pattern; it assumes that the current attempt to institute an all-volunteer army will be like the previous attempt.

Because this is a strengthen question, look for answer choices that suggest the two attempts are similar. The more similar they are, the more likely the current attempt will end in failure, and the easier it is to conclude that we shouldn’t implement an all-volunteer army.

The population’s level of education has risen since the first time an all-volunteer army was tried.

This answer choice introduces a difference between the current attempt to implement an all-volunteer army and the past attempt. If the education level of the population increased, there’s reason to expect a different result this time around. Rather than strengthen the argument against an all-volunteer army, this answer weakens it. Eliminate (A).

The proposal was made by an organization called Citizens for Peace.

The identity of the group that made the proposal is out of scope. The relevant question asks whether there’s good reason to believe that acting on the proposal will end in failure. Eliminate (B).

The first attempt to create a volunteer army was carried out according to the same plan now under proposal and under the same conditions as those that exist today.

Eureka! This answer introduces a relevant similarity between the two attempts to institute an all-volunteer army. If the last attempt ended in disaster, and the current attempt follows the same plan under the same conditions, there’s reason to believe the outcome will be similar. Choice (C) strengthens the argument against an all-volunteer army, so keep it.

A volunteer army would be less expensive than an army that relies on the draft.

The cost of a volunteer army is out of scope. The argument concerns the trustworthiness of such an army, not its cost. Eliminate (D).

Armies are smaller today than they were when a volunteer army was last proposed.

Like (A), (E) introduces a dissimilarity between the two attempts to institute a volunteer army. For that reason, it’s unlikely to be the correct answer. More importantly, like (B) and (D), it’s out of scope. It doesn’t matter how big the army is or was, but whether it’s staffed by trustworthy people or criminals. Eliminate (E).

Several book publishing companies have recently switched at least partially from distributing hard copy, paper page proofs (shared with book development team members such as editor, copyeditor, etc.) to digital page proofs (PDFS) shared and marked-up electronically with no use of paper at all. Therefore, less printer paper will be used as a result of these changes than would have been used if these companies had continued to use hard copy pages.

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

Many of the companies that have switched to electronic page proofs have increased the number of page proofs sent.

More printer paper was used to create guidelines for the use of electronic, PDF page proofs than was used to simply share hard copy page proofs.

Companies that used more printer paper were more likely to switch to electronic, PDF page proofs than companies that used less printer paper.

Some of the industries that have switched at least partially to digital page proofs still primarily use printer paper for other operations.

The amount of printer paper needed to explain the digital, PDF page proofing system is less than the amount that would have been used for hard copy page proofs.

The question asks which of the answer choices most strengthens the argument, so this is a strengthen question. Begin by distinguishing the argument’s conclusion from its premises, and then find the assumption.

The conclusion of the argument is that less printer paper will be used as a result of these changes than would have been used if these companies had continued to distribute hard copy page proofs. The changes referenced by the conclusion are defined in the premise of the argument that companies switched…from distributing hard copy, paper page proofs…to digital page proofs (PDFs) shared and marked-up electronically with no use of paper at all. The argument concludes that because of these changes, less printer paper will be used. The assumption of this argument is that the introduction of the new process does not result in increased use of paper for any other reason. Put another way, there are no unintended consequences of the decision.

Because this is a strengthen question, look for an answer choice that eliminates a possible reason the electronic memo system does not result in less printer paper being used.

Many of the companies that have switched to electronic page proofs have increased the number of page proofs sent.

The number of pages sent electronically is out of scope. The number of pages or chapters sent by companies that have switched to the electronic system does not address a reason that less printer paper is being used. Eliminate (A).

More printer paper was used to create guidelines for the use of electronic, PDF page proofs than was used to simply share hard copy page proofs.

If more printer paper was used to create manuals to explain how to use the digital page proofs (PDFs) than would have been used to proof hard copy, printed pages, then the changes did not have the intended effect. This weakens the argument. Eliminate (B).

Companies that used more printer paper were more likely to switch to electronic, PDF page proofs than companies that used less printer paper.

At first glance, this appears to be a good answer, but this choice does not address whether the digital page proofs caused less printer paper to be used. Therefore, this choice is out of scope. Eliminate (C).

Some of the industries that have switched at least partially to digital page proofs still primarily use printer paper for other operations.

This choice does not impact the argument because the use of printer paper for other operations does not give any information regarding whether the use of digital page proofs decreased the amount of printer paper used. Eliminate (D).

The amount of printer paper needed to explain the digital, PDF page proofing system is less than the amount that would have been used for hard copy page proofs.

This choice provides information to suggest that less printer paper is used to create the electronic system than would have been used to create page proofs, so a company that adopts the electronic digital, page proof system uses less printer paper. This choice strengthens the argument. Keep (E).

Inference Question

In film and television, it’s possible to induce viewers to project their feelings onto characters on the screen. In one study, a camera shot of a woman’s face was preceded by images of a baby. The audience thought the woman’s face registered contentment. When the same woman’s face was preceded by images of a shark attack, the audience thought the woman’s face registered fear. Television news teams must be careful to avoid such manipulation of their viewers.

Which of the following is best supported by the information in the passage?

Television news teams have abused their position of trust in the past.

The expression on the woman’s face was, in actuality, blank.

Images of a baby engendered feelings of happiness in the audience.

Audiences should strive to be less gullible.

The technique for manipulating audiences described in the passage would also work in a radio program that played dramatic music.

The question asks for the answer best supported by the information in the passage. The direction of support is from the passage to the answer choices, so this is an inference question. Begin by getting clear on the facts.

Once you’re clear on the facts, look for the answer that must be true on their basis. Be wary of extreme language and eliminate answers that are beyond the scope of the information provided. The correct answer is likely to paraphrase information in the passage.

Television news teams have abused their position of trust in the past.

This answer goes well beyond the scope of the passage. We have no idea what news teams did in the past based on the information provided. Eliminate (A).

The expression on the woman’s face was, in actuality, blank.

Like the previous choice, this answer is out of scope. Based on the information provided, we simply don’t know whether the woman’s face was expressionless. Eliminate (B).

Images of a baby engendered feelings of happiness in the audience.

Images of a baby led the audience to believe the woman’s face registered contentment. If audience members projected their feelings onto the woman, then audience members must have experienced contentment, and it’s likely the images of a baby were responsible. Keep (C).

Audiences should strive to be less gullible.

Of course, we should all strive to be less gullible, but we know that simply because we know what “gullible” means, not because of the information provided. Nothing in the passage suggests that audience members were gullible. Eliminate (D).

The technique for manipulating audiences described in the passage would also work in a radio program that played dramatic music.

It’s possible that the information in this answer choice is true, but possible isn’t good enough. We need an answer that must be true, and the passage provides no information about the projection of emotion in the medium of sound. Eliminate (E).

The Mayville Fire Department always fills its employment vacancies “in-house”—when a firefighter retires or leaves the force, his or her position is filled by interviewing all qualified members of the Mayville Department who are interested in the position. Only if this process fails to produce a qualified candidate does the department begin interviewing potential employees from outside the department. This year, the Mayville Fire Department has hired three new firefighters from outside the department.

If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?

For the coming year, the Mayville Fire Department will be understaffed unless it hires three additional firefighters.

Firefighters hired from outside the Mayville Fire Department take longer to properly train for the job.

At the time of the vacancies in the Mayville Fire Department, either there were no qualified in-house candidates or no qualified in-house candidates were interested in the open positions.

The three firefighters who left the department had jobs for which no other members of the Mayville Fire Department were qualified to fill.

The three new firefighters are the first new employees hired by the Mayville Fire Department.

This question asks which of the answer choices must be true, so this is an inference question.

For inference questions, there is no need to identify the conclusion and premise of the argument. Instead, be sure to understand what the argument states. The argument states that when a firefighter retires or leaves the force [from the Mayville Fire Department], his or her position is filled by interviewing all qualified members of the Mayville Department who are interested in the position. The argument then goes on to state that if the process of interviewing internal candidates fails does the department begin interviewing potential employees from outside the department. Finally, the argument reveals that the Mayville Fire Department has hired three new firefighters from outside the department.

Evaluate the answer choices, looking for one that must be true based on the facts in the argument.

For the coming year, the Mayville Fire Department will be understaffed unless it hires three additional firefighters.

This is out of scope. The passage provides no information to suggest that the department needs to hire three additional firefighters. The passage only states that the department has hired three new firefighters from outside the department. Eliminate (A).

Firefighters hired from outside the Mayville Fire Department take longer to properly train for the job.

This is out of scope. The passage provides no information about the amount of time it takes to train a firefighter for the Mayville Fire Department. Eliminate (B).

At the time of the vacancies in the Mayville Fire Department, either there were no qualified in-house candidates or no qualified in-house candidates were interested in the open positions.

This answer can be properly inferred based on the information in the passage. Because the department hired three candidates from outside the department, and they only hire candidates from outside the department if there are no qualified people inside the department who are interested in the position, then there must have been no qualified people from the Mayville department who wanted the job. Keep (C).

The three firefighters who left the department had jobs for which no other members of the Mayville Fire Department were qualified to fill.

The reason the firefighters left the Mayville department is out of scope. The passage is not concerned with why the firefighters left the department, only with the process to replace the ones that do leave. Eliminate (D).

The three new firefighters are the first new employees hired by the Mayville Fire Department.

This choice is out of scope. There is no way to determine if the three new firefighters are the first new employees hired by the Mayville Fire Department from the information in the argument. Eliminate (E).

Resolve/Explain Question

In 2008, the world’s airlines reported an increase in the total number of passengers carried, but a decrease in total revenues, even though prices for airline tickets on all routes remained unchanged from the year before.

Which of the following resolves the paradox described above?

The airline industry was a victim of the recession in 2008.

Total passenger miles were up in 2008.

Fuel costs remained constant from 2007 to 2008.

Passengers traveled shorter distances on less expensive flights in 2008.

No new aircraft were purchased by any carrier in 2008.

The question asks for the answer that resolves the paradox, so this is a resolve/explain question. Your knowledge of question types suggests that the accompanying passage will present two pieces of information that seem to be in conflict. State that opposition as clearly as possible.

The correct answer to a resolve/explain question will allow both pieces of information to be true simultaneously. Eliminate answers that are out of scope, address only one side of the conflict, or make the conflict worse.

The airline industry was a victim of the recession in 2008.

A recession might account for the decrease in revenue, but if ticket prices remained the same, it’s unclear how the number of passengers could have increased. Choice (A) addresses only one side of the conflict, so eliminate it.

Total passenger miles were up in 2008.

If passengers flew farther in 2008 and ticket prices remained the same, it’s unclear how revenues could have decreased. Like (A), this answer addresses only one side of the conflict. Eliminate (B).

Fuel costs remained constant from 2007 to 2008.

Fuel costs are out of scope. An increase in fuel costs might have affected airline profits, but profits are not revenues. This answer has no bearing on either side of the conflict. Eliminate (C).

Passengers traveled shorter distances on less expensive flights in 2008.

This answer looks promising. If the increase in passengers was offset by passengers taking cheaper flights, then revenues could have decreased even as the number of passengers increased. Keep (D).

No new aircraft were purchased by any carrier in 2008.

New aircraft are out of scope. The purchase of new aircraft might have affected airline profits, but if no new aircraft were purchased, then new aircraft affected neither profits nor revenues, and this answer has no relevance at all. Eliminate (E).

Over the past few decades, how music lovers access their music has changed dramatically. Digital file sharing technology such as iTunes, Spotify, and the like, have threatened the traditional market for entire music albums. In the case of iTunes, specifically, users are now able to download single songs from their favorite artists, enabling them to acquire the songs they desire without having to purchase the entire album. Some music industry leaders contend that this practice causes untold financial losses, as the cost of individual songs is not enough to offset the money lost producing the songs that were not purchased from the rest of the album. However, consumer groups report that there has been an increase in the sales of entire music albums.

Which of the following, if true, would best explain the situation above?

Some consumers who have illegally downloaded songs from the Internet have been sued by major record companies.

Research indicates that persons who engage in file-sharing or song-downloading are usually only casual music fans.

The music industry is developing new technology to help prevent users from illegally downloading songs.

Music artists tend to release more material today, on average, than they did a few decades ago.

Entire music albums released now often include bonus features that are appealing to fans, such as hidden tracks, interviews with the band, and music videos, that are not available unless the entire album is purchased.

The question asks which of the answer choices best explains the situation above, so this is a resolve/explain passage.

For resolve/explain passages, look for two facts presented in the passage that are in conflict.

The correct answer will explain the apparent discrepancy between these two facts.

Some consumers who have illegally downloaded songs from the Internet have been sued by major record companies.

This choice is out of scope. Major record companies suing consumers who have illegally downloaded songs does not explain the discrepancy between the ability to download single songs and the increase in sales of entire music albums. Eliminate (A).

Research indicates that persons who engage in file-sharing or song-downloading are usually only casual music fans.

This is out of scope. The degree of a downloader’s fandom does nothing to explain the discrepancy in the argument. Eliminate (B).

The music industry is developing new technology to help prevent users from illegally downloading songs.

Choice (C) does not explain the increase in entire album sales, so this addresses only one side of the conflict. Eliminate (C).

Music artists tend to release more material today, on average, than they did a few decades ago.

This choice adequately addresses one side of the conflict, as artists releasing more material could explain the increase in album sales. However, this does not address the paradox in the argument, so eliminate (D).

This choice states that entire music albums feature bonus material that is not available unless the entire album is purchased. This could explain both the fact that people are downloading individual songs and that entire music album sales are increasing.

Evaluate Question

During a period of low growth after a recent and remarkable boom in the solar energy sector, Company X, a major manufacturer of solar-powered generators, attributed its success during the boom to the sale of excess inventory it had discovered in one of its warehouses.

Which of the following tests would most help to evaluate the company’s hypothesis as to the cause of its success?

Comparing the length of the low-growth period to the length of the preceding boom

Comparing the boom experienced by Company X to those experienced by similarly sized manufacturers of solar-powered generators that did not have inventory on hand

Calculating average sales increases within the individual divisions of Company X

Comparing the total number of generators sold by Company X during the boom to the total number sold by Company X during the period of low growth

Using economic theory to predict the next economic boom for Company X

The question asks for the test that would most help to evaluate the company’s hypothesis, so this is an evaluate question. According to the question stem, the hypothesis concerns the cause of Company X’s success. As you begin to work the argument, look for claims that provide a reason Company X succeeded.

The passage’s final sentence states that Company X attributed its success during the boom to the sale of excess inventory, but how does Company X come to believe that? The only other piece of information we get from the passage is that there was a boom in the solar energy sector, followed by a period of low growth.

Without additional information, it’s unclear how changes in the solar energy sector relate to the company’s claim about its own success. However, if you noticed the word cause in the question stem, then you probably recognized that Company X makes a causal argument.

Take advantage of the causal reasoning pattern by recalling its standard assumptions: there’s no other cause, and it’s not a coincidence. The former assumption seems more relevant here, because Company X assumes the sale of excess inventory alone was responsible for its success.

Evaluate the answer choices one at a time, looking for the test that would allow you to determine whether there isn’t another reason for Company X’s success.

Comparing the length of the low-growth period to the length of the preceding boom

Executing this comparison would tell us how long each of the periods lasted, but connecting that information to the sale of excess inventory would require inferences beyond the scope of the information provided. Eliminate (A).

Comparing the boom experienced by Company X to those experienced by similarly-sized manufacturers of solar-powered generators that did not have inventory on hand

This answer choice is tempting. We’re looking for a way to determine whether something other than the sale of excess inventory might have caused Company X’s success. If competitors without excess inventory to sell experienced booms comparable to that of Company X, then the company’s claim might be incorrect. On the other hand, if competitors didn’t experience as big a boom, it appears more likely that the sale of excess inventory was responsible for Company X’s success. Keep (B).

Calculating average sales increases within the individual divisions of Company X

Individual divisions of Company X are out of scope. We already know that the company sold excess inventory; which divisions saw sales increases is irrelevant. Eliminate (C).

Comparing the total number of generators sold by Company X during the boom to the total number sold by Company X during the period of low growth

At first glance, this answer choice looks appealing. The comparison described here would allow us to determine how many generators were sold during each period. If more generators were sold during the boom than during the low-growth period, it might seem as though Company X’s success during the boom resulted from the sale of excess inventory. However, the passage states that the period of low growth followed the boom. If more generators were sold during the boom, then at best, we could infer that a decline in sales led to decreased success. To determine whether the sale of excess inventory caused Company X’s success during the boom, we’d need sales numbers from the period before the boom, not the period after it. Eliminate (D).

Using economic theory to predict when the next economic boom for Company X will occur

Of the five answer choices, this one is most obviously out of scope. An estimate of the time that will elapse before the next boom needn’t have any relevance to the cause of the last boom. Eliminate (E).

Identify the Reasoning Question

Although measuring the productivity of outside consultants is a complex endeavor, Company K, which relies heavily on consultants, must find ways to assess the performance of these workers. The risks to a company that does not review the productivity of its human resources are simply too great. Last year, Company L was forced into receivership after its productivity declined for three consecutive quarters.

The bolded clauses play which of the following roles in the argument above?

The first bolded clause states the author’s conclusion, and the second introduces unrelated information.

The first bolded clause provides background information, and the second offers evidence to contradict that information.

The first bolded clause states one of the author’s premises, while the second states the author’s conclusion.

The first bolded clause expresses a position, and the second warns against the adoption of that position.

The first bolded clause represents the author’s conclusion, and the second supports the conclusion with an analogy.

The bolded clauses in the passage immediately indicate that this is an ID the reasoning question, so begin by distinguishing the argument’s conclusion from the premises that support it. Don’t worry about finding assumptions.

The phrase must find ways to assess is strong language, making the first bolded phrase a good candidate for the argument’s conclusion. Why must Company K find ways to assess the performance of its outside consultants? Because companies that don’t review the productivity of human resources face risks—just look at Company L! Both of the passage’s remaining sentences operate in support of the first bolded phrase. The second bolded clause supports the conclusion by offering the example of a company that was forced into receivership after its productivity declined.

Now that you’ve got a good sense of the argument’s structure, look for the answer that correctly mirrors it.

The first bolded clause states the author’s conclusion, and the second introduces unrelated information.

The first part of this answer looks good, because the first bolded clause does state the author’s conclusion. However, the second bolded clause supports the conclusion; it does not introduce unrelated information. Choice (A) only partially matches the argument’s structure, so eliminate it.

The first bolded clause provides background information, and the second offers evidence to contradict that information.

Part of the first bolded clause states that Company K relies heavily on consultants, which does resemble background information. However, nothing in the second bolded clause contradicts that information. Choice (B) is a partial match. Eliminate it.

The first bolded clause states one of the author’s premises, while the second states the author’s conclusion.

This answer choice reverses the roles played by the bolded clauses. Since it doesn’t match the structure of the argument, eliminate (C).

The first bolded clause expresses a position, and the second warns against the adoption of that position.

Like (A) and (B), (D) is a partial match. The first bolded clause expresses a position, but the second doesn’t warn against the adoption of that position. Eliminate (D).

The first bolded clause represents the author’s conclusion, and the second supports the conclusion with an analogy.

This answer accurately reflects the relationship between the bolded clauses: the first is the author’s conclusion, and the second supports the conclusion by offering the example of analogous Company L. Keep (E).

Flaw Question

A telephone poll conducted in two states asked respondents whether their homes were cold during the winter months. Ninety-nine percent of respondents said their houses were always warm during the winter. The pollsters published their findings, concluding that ninety-nine percent of all homes in the United States have adequate heating.

Which of the following most accurately describes a questionable technique employed by the pollsters in drawing their conclusion?

The poll wrongly ascribes the underlying causes of the problem.

The poll assumes conditions in the two states are representative of the entire country.

The pollsters conducted the poll by telephone, thereby relying on the veracity of respondents.

The pollsters didn’t visit respondents’ houses in person, so no measure of the temperature in a subject’s home was actually made.

The pollsters never defined the term “cold” in terms of a specific temperature.

The question asks for a questionable technique used by the pollsters, so this is a flaw question.

You already know from the question stem that the argument has a serious problem. Your job is to figure out what that problem is. Begin by identifying the argument’s premises and conclusion.

Then, use a gap in the reasoning to hone in on the assumption. Because this is a flaw question, be on the lookout for common reasoning patterns.

The word concluding in the last sentence of the passage gives away the conclusion: ninety-nine percent of all homes in the United States have adequate heating. Why did the pollsters conclude this? Their findings were based on the results of a telephone poll conducted in two states, in which ninety-nine percent of respondents said their houses were always warm during the winter.

Did you recognize the pattern of reasoning in this argument? Information about one group of people (the poll was conducted in two states) is used to make a claim about a much larger group (all households in the United States). This argument employs the sampling pattern. The standard assumption involved in the sampling pattern is that the sample is representative of the larger population. Look for answers that call attention to this assumption.

The poll wrongly ascribes the underlying causes of a problem.

Underlying causes are out of scope. The pollsters ask whether people’s homes are cold. The reason they might be cold is irrelevant. Eliminate (A).

The poll assumes conditions in the two states are representative of the entire country.

This answer expresses the standard assumption involved in the sampling pattern. Nothing in the passage suggests that the households surveyed are representative of U.S. householders in general. Keep (B).

The pollsters conducted the poll by telephone, thereby relying on the veracity of respondents.

The information in this answer might betray a weakness in the pollsters’ methodology, but it isn’t a weakness in the pollsters’ reasoning. Eliminate (C).

The pollsters didn’t visit respondents’ houses in person, so no measurement of the temperature in a subject’s home was actually made.

Like (C), this answer describes a problem with the poll, not with the argument. Eliminate (D).

The pollsters never defined the term “cold” in terms of a specific temperature.

It’s true that the pollsters never defined the term “cold,” but does that represent a flaw in the pollsters’ reasoning? The flaw identified here concerns the poll itself, not the argument. Eliminate (E).

Now that you know how to identify and approach each of the eight Critical Reasoning question types, the best way to proceed is to practice. The more you experience through preparation, the less likely you are to be surprised on test day.

As you complete Critical Reasoning drills and exercises, force yourself to follow the basic approach. Your knowledge of the question type informs every step of the basic approach to Critical Reasoning questions, from reading the passage to eliminating incorrect answers, so always read the question first. Memorize the common reasoning patterns and the assumptions that go with them, develop a familiarity with the characteristics of good and bad answers, and you’ll be well on your way to mastering the Critical Reasoning format.

Critical Reasoning Practice Set

In this practice set, follow the steps exactly as we have presented them. Answers can be found in Part V.

1 of 5

In 1989, corporate tax rates in some regions of the United States fell to their lowest level in 15 years, while the rates in other regions reached new highs. In 1974, similar conditions led to a large flight of companies from regions with unfavorable corporate tax policies to regions with favorable policies. There was, however, considerably less corporate flight in 1989.

Which of the following, if true about 1989, most plausibly accounts for the finding that there was less corporate flight in 1989 ?

The regions with the most favorable corporate tax policies had many of the same types of corporations as did those with unfavorable tax policies, but this was not true in 1974.

In contrast to 1974, office rental costs in the regions with the most favorable corporate tax policies were significantly higher than rental costs in other areas of the country.

In contrast to 1974, in 1989, the areas with the most favorable corporate tax policies reaped the most benefit from tax incentives, although the tax codes were particularly difficult to decipher.

Tax incentives offered by foreign countries were higher in 1989 than in 1974.

Individual tax incentives in the areas with favorable corporate tax policies were slightly lower than they were 15 years earlier in areas with favorable corporate tax policies.

2 of 5

Aramayo: Our federal government seems to function most efficiently when decision-making responsibilities are handled by only a few individuals. Therefore, our government should consolidate its leadership and move away from a decentralized representative democracy.

Tello: But moving our government in this direction could violate our constitutional mission to provide government of, for, and by the people.

Which of the following statements describes Tello’s response to Aramayo?

Tello contradicts the reasoning used by Aramayo.

Tello uncovers an assumption used in Aramayo’s reasoning.

Tello brings up a possible negative consequence of accepting Aramayo’s argument.

Tello reveals the circular reasoning used by Aramayo.

Tello shows that Aramayo overgeneralizes a very special situation.

3 of 5

Business computer systems are designed to make workers more productive by automating a portion of the work that must be completed in a business process. As a result, the employee is free to perform more tasks that require human attention. Although productivity may be lost during a learning period, many businesses experience dramatic gains in productivity after installing a new computer system. While discussing the connection between productivity gains and computer systems, a well-respected business journal recently stated that the person who serves as the Chief Information Officer is the consummate business computer system.

By comparing a Chief Information Officer to business computer systems, the journal implicitly argues that

Chief Information Officers should always communicate the value of computer systems to their companies

the productivity of a company can be increased through the hiring of a Chief Information Officer

many companies have not improved their productivity with new computer systems

Chief Information Officers are more effective than are new computer systems

the impact of a Chief Information Officer on a company’s productivity is difficult to measure

4 of 5

Whenever Joe does his laundry at the Main Street Laundromat, the loads turn out cleaner than they do when he does his laundry at the Elm Street Laundromat. Laundry done at the Main Street Laundromat is cleaner because the machines at the Main Street Laundromat use more water per load than do those at the Elm Street Laundromat.

Which of the following statements, if true, helps support the conclusion above?

The clothes washed at the Elm Street Laundromat were, overall, less clean than those washed at the Main Street Laundromat.

Joe uses the same detergent at both laundromats.

The machines at the Oak Street Laundromat use twice as much water as do those at the Main Street Laundromat.

Joe does three times as much laundry at the Main Street Laundromat as he does at the Elm Street Laundromat.

Joe tends to do his dirtier laundry at the Elm Street Laundromat.

5 of 5

According to the United States Postal Service bureau of information, the rate of complaints concerning late delivery was 30 times higher in 1991 than in 1964. Because the United States Postal Service changed neighborhood routes from a multiple-truck delivery system to a single-truck delivery system between 1964 and 1991, the enormous increase in complaints must be a result of this systematic change.

Which of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion drawn above?

In 1991, most late-mail complaints were reported, whereas in 1964 most were not.

Even in a multiple-truck delivery system, certain letters will arrive late.

According to the United States Postal Service bureau of information, most of the complaints concerning late delivery in 1991 were about registered mail.

The bulk amount of mail processed by the United States Postal Service was not much larger in 1991 than it was in 1964, before the systemic change occurred.

The change in neighborhood routes from a multiple-truck to a single-truck delivery system sometimes causes enormous increase in the price of stamps.

Summary

Most Critical Reasoning questions require you to break down an argument. The conclusion is the main point of an argument. The premise is the fact cited in support of the conclusion.
The assumption is used to link the premise and the conclusion with each other. Without an assumption, an argument breaks down.
To crack a Critical Reasoning question, make sure to follow the steps of the basic approach:
1. Identify the Question
2. Work the Argument
3. Predict What the Answer Should Do
4. POE to Find the Answer
After reading the question, break down the argument into its premise and conclusion and, if necessary, the assumption.
Keep an eye out for common reasoning patterns and the standard assumptions of each.

Chapter 7

Critical Reasoning

CRITICAL REASONING

The Passage

The Question

The Answer Choices

HOW GRE ARGUMENTS ARE CONSTRUCTED

Conclusions

Practice: Identifying Conclusions

Premises

Practice: Finding the Premise

Assumptions

Practice: Locating Assumptions

Gaps

COMMON REASONING PATTERNS

Causal Reasoning Patterns

Planning Patterns

Sampling Patterns

Interpretation of Evidence Patterns

Analogy Patterns

THE BASIC APPROACH TO CRITICAL REASONING QUESTIONS

The Basic Approach: Critical Reasoning Questions

Step 1: Identify the Question

Assumption Questions

Weaken Questions

Strengthen Questions

Inference Questions

Resolve/Explain Questions

Evaluate Questions

Identify the Reasoning Questions

Flaw Questions

Step 2: Work the Argument

Step 3: Predict What the Answer Should Do

Step 4: Use POE to Find the Answer

CRITICAL REASONING PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Assumption Question

Weaken Question

Strengthen Question

Inference Question

Resolve/Explain Question

Evaluate Question

Identify the Reasoning Question

Flaw Question

Critical Reasoning Practice Set

Summary