Chapter 17
Critical Reasoning

To understand Critical Reasoning passages, you need to know a bit about formal logic, how arguments are constructed, and how to weaken and strengthen an argument. In this chapter, we will break down arguments into their three parts and show you how to recognize—and ace—the 8 major types of arguments that show up on the GMAT.

Critical reasoning questions make up a little less than one-third of the 41 questions on the Verbal section of the GMAT—approximately 11 questions. They consist of very short reading passages (typically 20 to 100 words). Each of these passages is followed by one or two questions, which are supposed to test your ability to think clearly. When this section was first introduced, the test writers said that “no knowledge of the terminology and of the conventions of formal logic is presupposed.” Nevertheless, you’ll find that while it may not be presupposed, some knowledge of the rudiments of formal logic—as applied by The Princeton Review—can substantially increase your score.

THE HISTORY OF CRITICAL REASONING

Over the years, the test writers have tried several different formats in an attempt to test reasoning ability.

The original GMAT contained a section called “Best Arguments.” In 1961, this section was replaced with something called “Organization of Ideas.” In 1966, this section was also phased out, and for six years reasoning ability went unmeasured. In 1972, GMAC tried again, with a section called “Analysis of Situations.” Finally, on the October 1988 version of the GMAT, the test writers unveiled Critical Reasoning for the first time.

Well, Not Exactly the First Time

In fact, Critical Reasoning looks a lot like Best Arguments. Test writers have used this type of question for years on the LSAT (Law School Admission Test) and, until recently, on the GRE (Graduate Record Exam).

Before we begin, take a moment to read a close approximation of the instructions for critical reasoning questions:

Directions: Every critical reading question refers to a brief argument or set of statements. Pick the best answer among the choices given.

Obviously you won’t need to read these instructions again.

How to Attack the Critical Reasoning Questions

The terseness of these instructions implies that all you need on these questions is common sense. Common sense will certainly help, but you should also understand a bit about the formal logic on which Critical Reasoning is based.

Like the other types of questions found on the GMAT, critical reasoning questions tend to be predictable. There are only a few question types, and as you learn how the test writers use their smattering of formal logic to write critical reasoning questions, you’ll be able to anticipate the answers to certain of those questions. In this chapter we’ll teach you how to:

  1. Use clues in the questions to anticipate the kind of answer you’re looking for in a passage.
  2. Analyze and attack the passages in an organized fashion.
  3. Understand the basic structure of the passages.
  4. Use Process of Elimination to eliminate wrong choices.

A Word About GMAT Logic

GMAT logic is different from the formal logic you may have studied in college. Our review of GMAT logic is not intended to be representative of logic as a whole. We don’t intend to teach you logic; we’re going to teach you GMAT logic.

The Passage

Most critical reasoning passages are in the form of arguments in which the writer tries to convince the reader of something. Here’s an example:

In the past 10 years, advertising revenues for the magazine True Investor have fallen by 30%. The magazine has failed to attract new subscribers, and newsstand sales are down to an all-time low. Thus, sweeping editorial changes will be necessary if the magazine is to survive.

There are three main parts to an argument:

In the passage above, the author’s conclusion is found in the last line:

Thus, sweeping editorial changes will be necessary if the magazine is to survive.

To support this, the author gives three pieces of evidence, or premises: Advertising revenue is down; there are no new subscribers; and very few people are buying the newspaper at the newsstand.

Are there any assumptions here? Well, not in the passage itself. Assumptions are never stated by the author. They are parts of the argument that have been left out. Even the best-thought-out argument has assumptions. In this case, one important assumption the author seems to make is that it was the old editorial policy that caused the problems the magazine is now encountering. Another assumption is that editorial changes alone will be enough to restore the magazine’s financial health.

A critical reasoning passage is not necessarily made up of only these three parts. The passage might contain other information as well—extraneous ideas, perhaps, or statements of an opposing point of view. This is why it’s so important to find and identify the conclusion and the premises (as well as the argument’s underlying assumptions).


premise, premise, premise, conclusion
or
conclusion, premise, premise, premise

Therefore, the conclusion can often be found in the first or last sentence of the passage.


therefore hence
thus implies
so indicates that

Premises are often preceded by another kind of signpost. Words like the following signal that evidence is about to be given to support a conclusion:


because in view of
since given that

This Is Not Like Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension passages are long and filled with useless facts. By now you’ve gotten used to reading these passages for their structure, letting your eyes skip over factual data you probably won’t be tested on anyway.

By contrast, critical reasoning passages are quite short, and every single word should be considered carefully; shades of meaning are very important. Because the passages are relatively short, you will probably never have to use the scroll bar to see them on your screen in their entirety.

The Question

Immediately after the passage, there will be a question. There is usually only one question per passage—which means it is essential that you always read the question first.

The question contains important clues that will tell you what to look for as you read the passage.

There Are Eight Question Types

Here are examples of the eight major question types you’ll see (we’ll go into much greater detail later in the chapter):

1. The passage above assumes that…

Reading
Comprehension Review

Trigger words that signal a
conclusion:
therefore
thus
so
hence
implies
indicates

We call these assumption questions. As you read the passage in question, you will be looking for an unstated premise upon which the argument depends.

2. Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion drawn above?

We call these strengthen-the-argument questions. This type of question is like an assumption question in that it asks you to find an unstated premise upon which the argument depends, and then bolster it.

3. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the passage above?

We call these weaken-the-argument questions. This type of question, like an assumption question, asks you to find an unstated premise of the argument and poke holes in it.

4. Which of the following can best be inferred from the passage above?

We call these inference questions. This question, like inference reading comprehension questions, is at most asking you to go a tiny bit further than the passage does.

5. Which of the following best resolves the apparent contradiction in the passage above?

We call these resolve/explain questions. This type of question asks you to pick an answer choice that explains an inconsistency between two incompatible facts.

6. Which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the logic of the argument above?

We call these evaluate-the-argument questions. This type of question asks you to pick an answer choice that would help to “assess” or “evaluate” part of an argument.

7. The bolded phrase plays which of the following roles in the argument above?

We call these identify-the-reasoning questions. This type of question asks you to identify the method or technique the author is using.

8. Which of the following most resembles the method used by the author to make the point above?

We call these parallel-the-reasoning questions. This type of question asks you to find a new argument among the answer choices that mimics the original argument.

While the wording of the questions may vary, these are the question types you’ll see—there are only eight. Each type of question has its own strategy, as we’ll show you.

Scope

As you read through this chapter you will notice that certain sentences keep coming up again and again in our discussions of how to eliminate wrong answers.

The ones you’ll see most often are:

“This answer choice goes too far.”

“That choice is outside of the scope of the argument.”

Why do these sentences appear so frequently? Because scope is one of the test writers’ favorite topics for critical reasoning questions. It takes a little practice to figure out how scope works. We’ll give you an introduction to the concept here, but you’ll need to work through the entire chapter (and practice on the questions in our online tests or in The Official Guide for GMAT Review) to understand it completely.

Here’s an example:

In an effort to save money, a country’s government is considering reducing its military spending. However, without military contracts, crucial industries in that country face bankruptcy, which could disrupt the economy. Thus, the same government that is reducing its military spending will eventually have to provide these industries with money for peacetime research and development.

Which of the following states the conclusion of the passage above?

   The necessity of providing money to keep crucial industries from going bankrupt will discourage the government from reducing its military budget.
   If the government decreases its military budget, it will eventually be forced to increase its military budget to its former level.
   The industries that receive research and development money will be successful in their efforts to convert to peacetime manufacturing.
   In the event of war, this country would be unprepared for military conflict.
   Reducing military spending to save money will result in some increases in other types of spending.

We will discuss how to do this type of question (inference) shortly, but for now, we’re going to summarize the argument and skip right to the answer choices in order to illustrate how to use scope as an elimination technique. The argument states that a country wants to save money by decreasing its military budget; however, in order to keep the industries that depend on military contracts from collapsing, the country will have to spend some additional money as well.

The GMAT Rewards Narrow Minds

In the Critical Reasoning section, it is easy to think too much. The first answer choice (what we call answer choice A) might look very tempting at first, because it seems to take the argument to its logical conclusion: “Hey, if cutting military spending is going to end up costing the country money, they may as well not do it.” But the test writers consider answer choice A to be outside the scope of this argument. In fact, if you think about it, we have no idea whether or not the government will be discouraged, or even whether the costs of supplying research and development money will be greater than the savings in military spending. This answer goes much further than the argument itself.

Choice B goes too far as well. Perhaps cutting military spending will turn out to be a bad idea, but even if that is true, how do we know that the country will then eventually decide to increase military spending? What might happen in the future is well outside the scope of this argument.

We can eliminate choice C for the same reason, because it merely goes off on a tangent to speculate as to the ultimate fate of the industries mentioned in the passage. Whether these industries succeed in making the transition to peacetime manufacturing is not crucial to this argument.

If you are tempted by choice D, you’re still thinking too much. When a country reduces its military spending, you could argue that it might be less prepared for war—but that is way outside the scope of this passage. Be careful not to impose your own value judgments or thought processes on these questions.


Keeping Track of POE

As you eliminate answer choices, it’s vital that you physically cross them off in your scratch booklet. This will prevent you from wasting time rereading answer choices you’ve already eliminated.

Choice E may have seemed simplistic when you first read it, but simple is exactly what we want here. Rather than asking us to make assumptions, inferences, or explanations, this question simply asks for the conclusion of the passage—nothing more. Choice E stays within the scope of the argument.

Now let’s look at the eight types of critical reading questions.

1. ASSUMPTION QUESTIONS

An assumption question asks you to identify an unstated premise of the passage from among the answer choices. As you read the passage, what you will be looking for is a gap in the underlying logic of the argument—a gap that can only be closed by stating out loud what is now only being assumed. There are many different kinds of assumptions the GMAT test writers can use, but let’s get you started by identifying three: causal assumptions, statistical assumptions, and analogy assumptions.

Causal Assumptions

The test writers are extremely fond of these and make use of them several times on every GMAT. Causal assumptions take an effect and suggest a cause for it. Take a look at the simplified example below.

Every time I wear my green suit, people like me. Therefore, it is my green suit that makes people like me.

The author’s conclusion (it is the green suit that makes people like him) is based on the premise that every time he wears it, he has observed that people like him. But this argument relies on the assumption that there is no other possible cause for people liking him. Perhaps he always wears a red tie with his green suit, and it’s really the tie that people like.

Whenever you spot a cause being suggested for an effect, ask yourself if the cause is truly the reason for the effect, or if there might be an alternate cause.

Analogy Assumptions

An argument by analogy compares one situation to another, ignoring the question of whether the two situations are comparable.

Use of this product causes cancer in laboratory animals. Therefore, you should stop using this product.

The author’s conclusion (you should stop using the product) is based on the premise that the product causes cancer in laboratory animals. This argument is not really complete. It relies on the assumption that because this product causes cancer in laboratory animals, it will also cause cancer in humans.

Whenever you see a comparison in a critical reasoning passage, you should ask yourself: Are these two situations really comparable?

Statistical Assumptions

A statistical argument uses statistics to “prove” its point. Remember what Mark Twain said: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Four out of five doctors agree: The pain reliever in Sinutol is the most effective analgesic on the market today. You should try Sinutol.

The conclusion (you should try Sinutol) is based on the premise that four out of five doctors found the pain reliever in Sinutol to be the most effective. However, a literal reading of the passage tells us that the statistic that the author uses in support of his conclusion is only based on the opinions of five doctors (all of whom may be on the board of directors of Sinutol). The author’s conclusion is based on the assumption that four out of every five doctors will find Sinutol to be wonderful. This may be correct, but we do not know for sure. Therefore, the most we can say about the conclusion is that it may be true.

Whenever you see statistics in an argument, always be sure to ask yourself the following question: Are the statistics representative?

Neither analogy nor statistical arguments are as prevalent on the GMAT as causal arguments.

How to Recognize an Assumption Question


Assumption questions generally contain one of the following wordings:

  • Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
  • The argument above assumes which of the following?
  • The claim above rests on the questionable presupposition that…

How to Attack the Answer Choices on an Assumption Question

Assumptions plug holes in the argument and help make a conclusion true. Here are some guidelines for spotting assumptions among the answer choices:

Now Let’s Try the Passage


Critical Reasoning Step-By-Step

  1. Read the question first, looking for clues as to which type of argument this might be.
  2. Read the passage carefully (no skimming), looking for the conclusion, the premises, and—most importantly—the assumptions.
  3. Begin eliminating answer choices based on POE.

Many people believe that gold and platinum are the most valuable commodities. To the true entrepreneur, however, gold and platinum are less valuable than opportunities that can enable him to further enrich himself. Therefore, 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 will lead to increased wealth.
   Only entrepreneurs feel that information is the most valuable commodity.

Here’s How to Crack It

The question tells you that you are looking for an assumption, which means that as you read, you’ll be looking for a hole in the argument.

Because an assumption supports the conclusion, it’s a good idea to know what the conclusion is. Can you identify it? It was in the last sentence, preceded by “therefore”: “In the world of high finance, information is the most valuable commodity.”

Assumption Guidelines

1) Assumptions are
never stated in the
passage.
2) An assumption must
support the conclusion;
eliminate answer
choices that
do not strengthen
the conclusion.
3) Assumptions
frequently work to
fill in gaps in the
reasoning of the
argument.
4) Look to see if the
assumption,
whether it is statistical,
analogical,
or causal, links the
evidence to the
conclusion.

As you read the passage, keep your eyes open for potential holes in the argument. For example, as you read, it might occur to you that the author is assuming that there is no such thing as bad information. Anyone who has ever taken a stock tip knows the error in that assumption.

Don’t be upset if you can’t find a hole in the argument as you read. The answer choices will give you a clue.

Let’s attack the answer choices:

   Gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities.

Does this support the conclusion? In a way, it does. If information is supposed to be the most valuable commodity, it might help to know that gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities.

However, saying that gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities does not necessarily mean that information is the most valuable commodity.

   Entrepreneurs are not like most people.

If most people find gold and platinum to be the most valuable commodities, while entrepreneurs prefer information, then it could be inferred that entrepreneurs are not like most people. Does this support the conclusion, though? Not really. Remember, the GMAT rewards narrow thinking.

   The value of information is incalculably high.

This answer merely restates the conclusion. Remember, we’re looking for an assumption, which is an unstated premise. In addition, this answer goes beyond the scope of the argument. To say that information is valuable does not mean that its value is “incalculable.”

   Information about business opportunities is accurate and will lead to increased wealth.

This is the best answer. If the business information is not accurate, it could not possibly be valuable. Therefore, this statement supports the conclusion by plugging a dangerous hole in the argument.

   Only entrepreneurs feel that information is the most valuable commodity.

Does this statement strengthen the conclusion? Actually, it might weaken it. The conclusion states that “in the world of high finance, information is the most valuable commodity.” Presumably the world of high finance is not composed exclusively of entrepreneurs. If only entrepreneurs believed information to be the most valuable commodity, then not everyone in the world of high finance would feel the same way.

2. STRENGTHEN-THE-ARGUMENT QUESTIONS

If a question asks you to strengthen an argument, it is saying that the argument can be strengthened; in other words, again, you’re going to be dealing with an argument that has a gap in its logic.

Like assumption questions, strengthen-the-argument questions are really asking you to find this gap and then fix it with additional information. Here are some guidelines for spotting strengthen-the-argument statements among the answer choices:

How to Recognize a Strengthen-the-Argument Question


Strengthen-the-argument questions are generally worded in one of two ways:

  • Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author’s argument?
  • Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the author’s hypothesis?

Now Let’s Try the Passage

It has recently been proposed that we adopt an all-volunteer army. This policy was tried on a limited basis 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. Can we trust our national defense to a volunteer army? The answer is clearly “No.”

Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the author’s claim that an all-volunteer army should not be implemented?

   The general 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.
   The size of the army needed today is smaller than that needed when a volunteer army was first tried.

Here’s How to Crack It

You know from reading the question first that you’re expected to fix a flaw in the argument. Even better, the question itself tells you the conclusion of the passage: “An all-volunteer army should not be implemented.”

Conclusion Is Key

The easiest way to
strengthen an argument is
to strengthen the conclusion.
You can do this by
presenting new evidence
that strengthens the
underlying assumptions.
Any answer choice that
comes from the passage
will probably be wrong.
New evidence or assumptions,
whether statistical,
analogical, or causal, must
support the conclusion.

Because the reasoning in a strengthen-the-argument question is going to contain gaps, it pays to see whether the argument is statistical, causal, or analogous. You may have noticed that the argument does, in fact, use an analogy. The author bases his conclusion on the results of one previous experience. In effect he says, “The idea didn’t work then, so it won’t work now.” This is the potential flaw in the argument.

If you didn’t spot the argument by analogy, don’t worry. You would probably have seen it when you started attacking the answer choices:

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

Does this support the author’s conclusion? Actually, it may weaken the conclusion. If the general level of education has risen, it could be argued that the level of education of army volunteers is also higher. This would remove one of the author’s objections to a volunteer army. Eliminate it.

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

This is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion. You might have wondered whether a group called “Citizens for Peace” was the right organization to make suggestions about the army. Attacking the reputation of a person in order to cast doubt on that person’s ideas is a very old pastime. There’s even a name for it: an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem statement does not strengthen an argument. Eliminate it.

   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.

This is the best answer. The passage as it stands is potentially flawed because we cannot know that a new attempt to institute an all-volunteer army would turn out the same way it did before. This answer choice provides new information that suggests that the two situations are analogous.

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

Does this support the conclusion? No. In fact, it makes a case for a volunteer army. Eliminate it.

   The size of the army needed today is smaller than that needed when a volunteer army was first tried.

Like answer choice D, this answer contradicts the conclusion of the passage. If we need a smaller army today, maybe we would be able to find enough smart and honest volunteers to make a volunteer army work. Eliminate it.

3. WEAKEN-THE-ARGUMENT QUESTIONS

If a question asks you to weaken an argument, it implies that the argument can be weakened; in other words, once again, you’re going to be dealing with unstated premises and a logical gap.

Like assumption questions and strengthen-the-argument questions, weaken-the-argument questions really ask you to find a hole in the argument. This time, however, you don’t need to fix the hole. All you have to do is expose it. Here are some guidelines for finding weaken-the-argument statements among the answer choices:

How to Recognize a Weaken-the-Argument Question


Weaken-the-argument questions are usually worded in one of the following ways:

  • Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn in the passage?
  • Which of the following indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?
  • Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious doubt on the argument above?

Now Let’s Try the Passage

The recent turnaround of the LEX Corporation is a splendid example of how an astute chief executive officer can rechannel a company’s assets toward profitability. With the new CEO at the helm, LEX has gone, in only three business quarters, from a 10 million dollar operating loss to a 22 million dollar operating gain.

A major flaw in the reasoning of the passage above is that

   the passage assumes that the new CEO was the only factor that affected the corporation’s recent success
   the recent success of the corporation may be only temporary
   the chief executive officer may be drawing a salary and bonus that will set a damaging precedent for this and other corporations
   the author does not define “profitability”
   rechanneling assets is only a short-term solution

Here’s How to Crack It

You know from reading the question that you’ll need to find a flaw in the reasoning of the argument. As you read the passage, look for the conclusion. The correct answer choice will weaken this conclusion. In this passage, the conclusion is in the first sentence: “The recent turnaround of the LEX Corporation is a splendid example of how an astute chief executive officer can rechannel a company’s assets toward profitability.”

Because this is a weaken-the-argument question that will almost certainly contain a gap in its reasoning, you should look to see whether the argument is causal, statistical, or analogical. In this case, the argument is causal. The passage implies that the sole cause of the LEX Corporation’s turnaround is the new CEO. While this may be true, it is also possible that there are other causes. If you didn’t spot the causal argument, don’t worry. You would probably have seen it when you attacked the answer choices. Let’s do that now:

   the passage assumes that the new CEO was the only factor that affected the corporation’s recent success

This is the best answer. The new chief executive officer may not have been the cause of the turnaround—there may have been some other cause we don’t know about.

   the recent success of the corporation may be only temporary

It may be hasty to crown LEX with laurels after only three economic quarters, but this statement doesn’t point out a flaw in the reasoning of the passage. Eliminate it.

   the chief executive officer may be drawing a salary and bonus that will set a damaging precedent for this and other corporations

This answer choice may seem tempting because it’s not in favor of the new CEO. But this alone doesn’t represent a major flaw in the reasoning of the passage. Eliminate it.

   the author does not define “profitability”

An author can’t define every word he uses. Profitability seems a common enough word, and a change in the balance sheet from minus 10 million to plus 22 million seems to qualify. Eliminate it.

   rechanneling assets is only a short-term solution

Like the second answer choice, this statement implies that all the votes aren’t in yet. This does not affect the reasoning of the argument, however. Eliminate it.

Weaken-the-Argument Questions Come in Different Flavors

GMAT test writers use a variety of different wordings to ask the same question. One variation on the weaken-the-argument question might look like this:

A telephone poll conducted over two states asked respondents whether their homes were ever cold during the winter months. 99% of respondents said they were never cold during the winter months. The pollsters published their findings, concluding that 99% of all homes in the United States have adequate heating.

Which of the following most accurately describes what might be 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, thus relying on the veracity of the subjects they spoke to.
   The pollsters did not go to the houses in person, thus precluding the actual measurement of temperatures in the subjects’ homes.
   The pollsters never defined the term “cold” in terms of a specific temperature.

Here’s How to Crack It

Whether a question contains the words “weakens the argument,” or “undermines the conclusion,” or even “describes a questionable technique,” what it is really asking you to do is find a hole in the logic of the argument. And, as usual, there are three types of holes that the GMAT test writers are very fond of: statistical, causal, and analogical. Did you spot one of these as you read the passage? Whenever you see an actual statistic in an argument (in this case, 99 percent), you should examine it closely: The pollsters are basing a statistic for the entire country on a poll conducted in only two states. If you didn’t spot this as you read the passage, don’t worry; you’ll spot it as you read the answer choices.

   The poll wrongly ascribes the underlying causes of the problem.

This answer choice says there might be an alternate cause for the conclusion—but does this feel like a causal argument? Let’s hold onto this and keep reading.

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

Aha! This choice is saying there is a statistical flaw in the argument. What if the two states were located in the southern part of the United States? If the residents of Florida were warm in January, would that be representative of the rest of the country who might be freezing? This seems like it must be the best answer, but let’s keep reading to make sure.

   The pollsters conducted the poll by telephone, thus relying on the veracity of the subjects they spoke to.

While this might represent a weakness in their interviewing technique, the question to ask yourself is whether this is an inherent weakness in the way the pollsters drew their conclusion. It is not; eliminate it.

   The pollsters did not go to the houses in person, thus precluding the actual measurement of temperatures in the subjects’ homes.

Again, if the pollsters had measured the temperature in each of the houses they went to, their information would probably have been more accurate, but does this constitute a flaw in the way the conclusion was drawn? Nope. Cross this one off.

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

This choice is nitpicking. While it might have been better if the pollsters had asked the respondents what temperature they considered cold, this wouldn’t really weaken the conclusion. The best answer is the second one.

4. INFERENCE QUESTIONS

Like inference questions in reading comprehension, critical reasoning inference questions do not really ask you to make an inference. In fact, you will often find that the answer to a critical reasoning inference question is so basic that you won’t believe it could be correct the first time you read it. Inference questions often have little to do with the conclusion of the passage; instead they might ask you to make inferences about one or more of the premises.

How to Recognize an Inference Question


Inference questions are typically worded in one of the following ways:

  • Which of the following can be inferred from the information above?
  • Which of the following must be true on the basis of the statements above?
  • Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the passage?
  • Which of the following conclusions could most properly be drawn from the information above?

You’ll note that the last two questions seem to ask about the conclusion—but, as you’ll see, they in fact ask for an inference.

Let’s try an example:

In film and videotape, it is possible to induce viewers to project their feelings onto characters on the screen. In one study, when a camera shot of a woman’s face was preceded by a shot of a baby in a crib, the audience thought the woman’s face was registering happiness. When the same shot of the woman’s face was preceded by a shot of a lion running toward the camera, the audience thought the woman’s face was registering fear. Television news teams must be careful to avoid such manipulation of their viewers.

Which of the following can be inferred from 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.
   A camera shot of a baby in a crib provoked feelings of happiness in the audience.
   Audiences should strive to be less gullible.
   The technique for manipulating audiences described in the passage would work with film or videotape.

B-School Lingo

sharks: aggressive
students who smell blood
and move in for the kill

shark comment: comment
designed to gore a fellow
student in class discussion

slice and dice:
running all kinds of
quantitative analysis
on a set of numbers

soft courses: touchy-feely
courses such as human
resources and organizational
behavior

soft skills: conflict
resolution, teamwork,
negotiation, and oral and
written communication

Source: Best 294 Business Schools

Here’s How to Crack It

This is an inference question. The test writers are probably not interested in the conclusion of the passage. You’ll look for a statement that seems so obvious that it almost doesn’t need saying. Let’s attack the answer choices:

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

If you chose this answer, you inferred too much. The passage doesn’t say that news teams have ever abused their position of trust. Eliminate it.

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

The audience had no idea what the expression on the woman’s face was, and neither do we. It would make sense for the woman’s face to be blank, but we don’t know whether this is so. This answer goes too far.

   A camera shot of a baby in a crib provoked feelings of happiness in the audience.

This is the best answer. The passage says that the audience projects its own feelings onto characters on the screen. If the audience believes the woman’s face reflects happiness, then that must have been its own reaction.

   Audiences should strive to be less gullible.

This statement goes way beyond the intent of the passage. Eliminate it.

   The technique for manipulating audiences described in the passage would work with film or videotape.

Again, this statement goes too far to be the correct answer to an inference question. Eliminate it.

Another Type of Inference Question

Inference questions come in one other form—and as you read them, you might think you are being asked to supply a conclusion rather than an inference. Almost invariably, the question asks you to find a “conclusion that is best supported by the passage above.” But, in fact, this is really nothing more than an inference question. And again, the key is not going too far.

Reading
Comprehension Review

“Yin-Yang” Words:
Yin
generally…
the old view…
the widespread belief…
most scientists think…
on the one hand…
Yang
however, this time…
however, the new view…
but the in-crowd
believes…
but Doctor Spleegle thinks…
on the other hand…

Here’s an example.

Fewer elected officials are supporting environmental legislation this year than at any time in the last decade. In a study of 30 elected officials, only five were actively campaigning for new environmental legislation. This comes at a time when the public’s concern for the environment is growing by leaps and bounds.

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the passage above?

   More elected officials are needed to support environmental legislation.
   Elected officials have lost touch with the concerns of the public.
   The five elected officials who actively campaigned for new environmental legislation should be congratulated.
   If the environment is to be saved, elected officials must support environmental legislation.
   If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents, many of them must increase their support of environmental legislation.

Here’s How to Crack It

Because you read the question first, you know that this is really just an inference question—and, as always with inference questions, the main thing is not to go too far. Be wary of answer choices that go further than the scope of the original argument. For example, if the passage has given you several noncontroversial facts about advertising, do not select an answer choice that says advertising is a waste of time.

Let’s attack the answer choices:

   More elected officials are needed to support environmental legislation.

This statement ignores the last premise of the passage—that the public is becoming more and more concerned about the environment. Eliminate it.

   Elected officials have lost touch with the concerns of the public.

This clearly goes beyond the scope of the argument and ignores parts of the first two premises that relate to the environment.

   The five elected officials who actively campaigned for new environmental legislation should be congratulated.

This statement, while consistent with the sentiments of the author, again does not deal with the last premise, relating to the concerns of the public.

   If the environment is to be saved, elected officials must support environmental legislation.

This answer choice again ignores the last premise in the passage and goes too far. Eliminate it.

   If elected officials are truly to represent their constituents, many of them must increase their support of environmental legislation.

Bingo. This answer is supported by all the premises, and it does not go beyond the scope of the argument.

FOUR DOWN—FOUR TO GO

As you begin working through the practice questions in this book or in The Official Guide to GMAT Review, you will quickly realize that most critical reasoning questions turn out to be one of the four major question types you have just learned: assumption, strengthen-the-argument, weaken-the-argument, or inference. The four remaining question types appear much less often. However, because of the somewhat random nature of the CAT, one of these less frequently asked questions could easily be the first one you see on the Verbal portion of the GMAT; therefore, it is just as important to be familiar with all eight.

5. RESOLVE/EXPLAIN QUESTIONS

Some GMAT questions ask you to resolve an apparent paradox or explain a possible discrepancy. In these questions, the passage will present you with two seemingly contradictory facts. Your job is to find the answer choice that allows both of the facts from the passage to be true.

How to Recognize a Resolve/Explain Question


Resolve/Explain questions are usually worded in one of the following ways:

  • Which of the following, if true, resolves the apparent contradiction presented in the passage above?
  • Which of the following, if true, best explains the discrepancy described above?
  • Which of the following, if true, forms a partial explanation for the paradox described above?

Here’s an example:

In 1994, TipTop Airlines reported an increase in the total number of passengers it carried from the year before, but a decrease in total revenues—even though prices for its tickets on all routes remained unchanged during the two-year period.

Which of the following, if true, best reconciles the apparent paradox described above?

   TipTop Airlines was a victim of a mild recession in 1994.
   Total passenger miles were up in 1994.
   Fuel costs remained constant during the two-year period.
   Passengers traveled shorter (and thus less expensive) distances in 1994.
   TipTop did not buy any new airplanes or equipment in 1994.

Here’s How to Crack It

First, restate the contradiction in your own words.

“TipTop’s profits went down even though they flew more passengers.”

Now, let’s see which of the answer choices makes both of the facts in the argument true.

   TipTop Airlines was a victim of a mild recession in 1994.

If TipTop was affected by a recession, that might explain a loss of revenues. But because ticket prices remained the same, it would not explain how the number of passengers could have increased at the same time. Eliminate it.

   Total passenger miles were up in 1994.

If total passenger miles were up, and prices remained the same, there is no way that there could have been a loss of revenues. We can eliminate this choice as well.

   Fuel costs remained constant during the two-year period.

If fuel costs had not remained constant, the company’s profits might have fallen. An increase in fuel prices could have increased its costs and cut into profits. But it would not have cut into total revenues, which is what we are concerned with in this passage. Of course, because choice C told us that the costs remained constant, this choice has no bearing on the argument at all. Eliminate it.

   Passengers traveled shorter (and thus less expensive) distances in 1994.

Bingo! If passengers traveled on short, inexpensive flights, then they paid less money. In spite of the increase in number of passengers, the money they paid could have added up to less than that of the year before. This is the best answer, but always remember to read all the choices anyway.

   TipTop did not buy any new airplanes or equipment in 1994.

This answer is much like the third choice, which we call choice C. If TipTop had bought new planes, it might have cut into its profits, but it would not have had any bearing on revenues. Of course, because this choice told us that TipTop did not buy any planes, there is no relevance at all. Eliminate it.

6. EVALUATE-THE-ARGUMENT QUESTIONS

A few GMAT critical reasoning questions will ask you to pick an answer choice that would help to “evaluate” or “assess” part of an argument. Like assumption questions, evaluate-the-argument questions revolve around understanding the unspoken gap in the logic of an argument.

How to Recognize an Evaluate-the-Argument Question


Evaluate-the-argument questions are generally worded in one of the following ways:

  • The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the significance of the author’s claims?
  • Which of the following pieces of information would be most useful in assessing the logic of the argument presented above?

Take a look at the following example:

Following a period of lingering malaise after a recent remarkable economic upturn in the solar-powered energy sector, Company X, a major maker of solar-powered generators, claimed that its rapid upturn resulted from the inventory still on hand in its warehouse.

Which of the following, if it could be carried out, would be most useful in evaluating the company’s hypothesis as to the causes of its rapid economic upturn?

   Comparing the length of the economic downturn experienced by Company X to the length of the upturn later experienced by Company X
   Comparing the rapidity of the economic upturn for Company X to that of other major makers of solar-powered generators, which did not have inventory on hand
   Calculating the average sales increases within the individual business units of Company X
   Comparing the total number of solar-powered generator sales by Company X just before the economic upturn to the total number of solar-powered generator sales by Company X just after the economic upturn
   Using economic theory to predict the most likely date of the next economic upturn for Company X

Here’s How to Crack It

As always, you should begin by reading the question first—and the key word that should jump out at you in this question is “evaluate.” In this particular passage, the conclusion is in the second half of the argument: Company X claims that its economic upturn was particularly fast-moving because the company already had existing inventory on hand.

This is an evaluate-the-argument question and will almost certainly contain a gap in its reasoning. You should, as always, look to see whether the argument is causal, statistical, or analogical. Take a moment before you keep reading, and look at the passage again to see if you can spot which type of argument this is.

In this case, the argument was causal. Company X says the cause of its rapid turnaround was the inventory it had in its warehouses—which presumably let the company immediately take advantage of the new demand for its product. The company implies that the sole cause of the rapidity of its economic upturn was its inventory. While this may be true, it is also possible that there are other causes. If you didn’t spot the causal argument, don’t worry. You would probably have seen it when you attacked the answer choices. Let’s look at them now:

   Comparing the length of the economic downturn experienced by Company X to the length of the upturn later experienced by Company X

The length of the economic downturn that preceded the upturn seems like it would be outside the scope of this argument, and, in any case, would not have much to do with whether the speed of Company X’s upturn had anything to do with the inventory it had on hand once the upturn began. If you were thinking that the length of time would matter because the inventory might be out of date, you overthought the problem. Eliminate it.

   Comparing the rapidity of the economic upturn for Company X to that of other major makers of solar-powered generators, which did not have inventory on hand

If Company X’s competitors, which did not have inventory on hand, did just as well or better during the economic upturn, then Company X’s explanation for its speedy upturn might be incorrect. In other words, there might be some other cause. Would this comparison be useful in evaluating Company X’s argument? This seems like it would be very useful, but let’s hold onto it while we look at the other answer choices.

   Calculating the average sales increases within the individual business units of Company X

This answer choice might help us to understand in more detail the extent of the upturn at Company X, but it gives us no insights into the causes behind the rapidity of their economic upturn. Let this one go.

   Comparing the total number of solar-powered generator sales by Company X just before the economic upturn to the total number of solar-powered generator sales by Company X just after the economic upturn

Like the comparison in the previous answer choice, this comparison would no doubt detail exactly the extent of the rapid economic upturn for Company X, but not explain the cause of the rapid upturn. Eliminate it.

   Using economic theory to predict the most likely date of the next economic upturn for Company X

A future economic upturn (presumably preceded by a downturn) is surely well beyond the scope of this question. We are concerned only with evaluating the reason that Company X believes is the cause of its speedy economic upturn. Eliminate it.

Given the fact that we’ve eliminated all the other possible answers, choice B looks even better.

7. IDENTIFY-THE-REASONING QUESTIONS

Occasionally, a critical reasoning question will ask you to identify a method, technique, or strategy used in the passage, or to identify the role of a bolded phrase in the passage. Either way, the best technique for answering this rare question type is to do what you would do to answer any of the other question types: identify the conclusion and the premise and think about how they are related.

To check out which
b-schools have the “Best
Professors,” take a look
at your online student
tools. If you haven’t
registered yet, go to
PrincetonReview.com/cracking

How to Recognize an Identify-the-Reasoning Question


Identify-the-reasoning questions are generally worded in one of the following ways:

  • The bolded phrase plays which of the following roles in the argument above?
  • The argument uses which of the following methods of reasoning?

Here’s a typical example:

Although measuring the productivity of outside consultants is a complex endeavor, Company K, which relies heavily on consultants for long-term projects, 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 the third straight quarter.

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

   The first phrase states the author’s conclusion, and the second phrase refutes that conclusion.
   The first phrase states an assumption of the argument, and the second phrase provides evidence to undermine that position.
   The first phrase states one of the author’s premises, and the second phrase provides the argument’s conclusion.
   The first phrase states a position, and the second phrase refutes that position.
   The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second phrase supports the conclusion with an analogy.

Here’s How to Crack It

As you read the question, the first things that should jump out at you are the words “bolded phrases,” which signal that this is an identify-the-reasoning question. And the first thing to do in an identify-the-reasoning question is to find the conclusion. Where is it? If you said “in the second half of the first sentence,” then you are doing just fine. Company K, according to the argument, should find a way to measure the productivity of its consultants. The second sentence merely reiterates the first, and the third sentence supports the conclusion with what appears to be an analogous situation.

As you look at the answer choices, look for an answer that correctly explains the purpose of the two bolded phrases. Now, let’s look at the answer choices:

   The first phrase states the author’s conclusion, and the second phrase refutes that conclusion.

The first bolded phrase is, in fact, the conclusion of the passage; so far, so good. But does the second phrase refute that conclusion? Not at all. In fact, it seems to be supporting it. Eliminate it.

   The first phrase states an assumption of the argument, and the second phrase provides evidence to undermine that position.

We’ve already determined that the first bolded phrase is the conclusion of the argument—but even if we weren’t sure of that, we could rule out this answer choice because an assumption is never stated in the passage. Even if you missed that, you would probably be able to eliminate this answer choice because the second bolded phrase seems to be supporting the first phrase, not undermining it. Eliminate it.

   The first phrase states one of the author’s premises, and the second phrase provides the argument’s conclusion.

To check out which b-
schools have the
“Greatest Opportunity for
Women,” take a look at
your online student tools.
If you haven’t registered
yet, go to
PrincetonReview.com/cracking

A premise is evidence in support of a conclusion. The first bolded phrase (about Company K) seems less a piece of evidence than the conclusion itself. The second bolded phrase is about another company entirely and seems to be offered in support of the first sentence; in other words, it is not likely to be the conclusion of the argument. Eliminate it.

   The first phrase states a position, and the second phrase refutes that position.

Like answer choices A and B, this says the second bolded phrase refutes the first. Because this is clearly not so, we can forget about this answer choice as well. Eliminate it.

   The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second phrase supports the conclusion with an analogy.

Because we have eliminated all the other possibilities, you should feel hopeful that this is the best answer, but never skip the final step and assume that choice E must be right without reading it. Does the first bolded phrase state the conclusion of the argument? Yes, it does. Does the second phrase support the conclusion with an analogy? Yes, in fact it does. The argument compares Company K’s situation to that of Company L. If this were a weaken-the-argument question, you would need to be asking yourself if these two companies were actually analogous. However, in this case, all we have to do is pick answer choice E and move on.

8. PARALLEL-THE-REASONING QUESTIONS

Parallel-the-reasoning questions ask you to recognize the reasoning in a passage and follow the same line of reasoning in one of the answer choices. The best way to understand the passage associated with a reasoning question is to simplify the terms. Here’s an example: “If it rains, I will stay home today.” We could simplify this by saying, “If A, then B.”

How to Recognize a Parallel-the-Reasoning Question


Parallel-the-reasoning questions are usually worded in one of the following ways:

  • Which of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the argument above?
  • Which of the following supports its conclusion in the same manner as the argument above?
  • Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?

Here’s an example:

World-class marathon runners do not run more than six miles per day when they are training. Therefore, if you run more than six miles per day, you are not world-class.

Which of the following statements supports its conclusion in the same manner as the argument above?

   Sprinters always run in the morning. If it is morning, and you see someone running, it will not be a sprinter.
   Paint never dries in less than three hours. If it dries in less than three hours, it is not paint.
   Little League games are more fun for the parents than for the children who actually play. Therefore, the parents should be made to play.
   If a car starts in the morning, chances are it will start again that evening. Our car always starts in the morning, and it always starts in the evening as well.
   If you sleep less than four hours per night, you may be doing yourself a disservice. Studies have shown that the most valuable sleep occurs in the fifth hour.

Here’s How to Crack It

First, simplify the argument in the passage. World-class marathon runners do not run more than six miles per day when they are training. (If A, then B.) Therefore, if you run more than six miles per day, you are not world-class. (If not B, then not A.)

Now let’s attack the answer choices:

   Sprinters always run in the morning. If it is morning, and you see someone running, it will not be a sprinter.

Just because this answer choice is also about running doesn’t mean the reasoning will be the same. In fact, it is unlikely that the test writers would use the same subject matter for the correct answer. If we simplify this argument, we get: If A, then B. If B, then not A. Is this the same reasoning used in the passage? No. Eliminate it.

   Paint never dries in less than three hours. If it dries in less than three hours, it is not paint.

If we simplify this argument, we get: If A, then B. If not B, then not A. This is the best answer.

   Little League games are more fun for the parents than for the children who actually play. Therefore, the parents should be made to play.

Simplifying this argument, we get … not much. The reasoning here is totally different. Also, note that the subject matter here is still about sports. Eliminate it.

   If a car starts in the morning, chances are it will start again that evening. Our car always starts in the morning, and it always starts in the evening as well.

If we simplify this argument, we get: If A, then B. If always A, then always B. That doesn’t sound right. Eliminate it.

   If you sleep less than four hours per night, you may be doing yourself a disservice. Studies have shown that the most valuable sleep occurs in the fifth hour.

Simplifying this argument, we get … again, not much. The reasoning in this answer choice is very different from the reasoning in the passage. Eliminate it.

Putting It All Together

Now that you know how to spot and how to approach each of the eight question types, the best way to proceed is to practice. As you do each critical reasoning question, force yourself to decide what type of question it is before you start reading the passage. Once identified, a critical reasoning question isn’t a mystery anymore—it will adhere to the conventions you’ve learned, and you will have a much easier time choosing the best answer.

To get you started, here’s a drill to see how you are doing at spotting the different critical reasoning question types.

DRILL 12 (Spotting Critical Reasoning Question Types)

The answers can be found in Part VI.

For each of the questions below, decide which question type it belongs to. For extra credit, list what you should look for in the passage that would normally precede the question.

1. Which of the following, if true, gives the most support to the recommendations above?

2. If the statements above are true, which of the following can properly be inferred on the basis of them?

3. The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in evaluating the significance of the counter-claimant’s charge?

4. The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

5. Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the CEO’s reasoning is flawed?

6. Which of the following, if true, best reconciles the seeming discrepancy described above?

7. The bolded phrase plays which of the following roles in the argument?

8. Which of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the argument above?

Summary