Category: Critical Reasoning

The education offered by junior colleges just after World War II had a tremendous practical effect on family-run businesses throughout the country.  After learning new methods of marketing, finance, and accounting, the sons and daughters of merchants returned home, often to increase significantly the size of the family’s enterprise or to maximize profits in other ways.

Which of the following statements is best supported bu the information above?

A.  The junior colleges principally emphasized methods of increasing the size of small businesses.

B.  The business methods taught in the junior colleges were already widespread before World War II.

C.  The business curricula at junior colleges did not include theoretical principles of management.

D.  Without the influence of junior colleges, many family-run businesses would have been abandoned as unprofitable.

E.  Business methods in many postwar family-run businesses changed significantly as a result of the junior colleges.

Think you know the answer?

The correct answer is E.

This question asks, “Which of the following is best supported by the information above?”  In other words, what can be inferred from the stated material?  The author in this question discusses the impact of junior colleges on family-run businesses.  Evidence.  These colleges introduced people to new methods that were often successfully applied to family-run businesses.  Conclusion:  These colleges had a tremendous effect on family-run businesses.

A good inference will not go beyond this scope or read too much into particular detail.  We go through the choices on Inference questions, because it’s hard to predict what the correct answer will be.

In (A) the disqualifying word is principally.  The information presented does not specify what the junior colleges emphasized.  This choice reads too much into the fact that often family businesses increased in size because of the newly acquired knowledge.  (B) is wrong because we really can’t infer how popular or widespread these methods were before the war.  For all we know these could have been revolutionary techniques or well-kept secrets. In (C), we know junior colleges taught new methods of marketing and finance and stuff like that; we do not know how much management theory was or was not presented.  This choice relies on data we aren’t given, a sure sign of an incorrect or unwarranted inference.  In (D), all we are really told is that many family-run businesses became more profitable.  It is possible that many family-run businesses could have been abandoned as unprofitable had it not been for the junior colleges, but nothing suggests that there necessarily would have been a significant number of business failures without colleges.

(E) is certainly true.  Business methods did change because of the education.  Notice how non biased this statement is,coming directly from the information given.  Often, people find the correct choice to be too obvious in Critical Reasoning questions; often it’s just that straightforward.

The rate of violent crime in this state is up 30% from last year.  The fault lies entirely in our court system: Recently our judges’ sentences have been so lenient that criminals can now do almost anything without fear of a long prison term.

The argument above would be weakened if it were true that

A.  85% of the other states in the nation have lower crime rates than does this state

B.  White-collar crime in this state has also increased by over 25% in the last year

C.  35% of the police in this state have been laid off in the last year due to budget cuts

D.  Polls show that 65% of the population in this state oppose capital punishment

E.  The state has hired 25 new judges in the last year to compensate for deaths and retirements

Think you know the answer?

The correct answer is C.

If we can show that something besides the court system may explain the increase in crime (if we can show a different cause for the same effect) we would weaken the argument.  The author, after all, assumes that there is no other cause ( a common GMAT assumption).  Tackle the choices, looking for another cause besides the allegedly lenient court sentences.

(A) is a classic faulty comparison.  The argument does not compare one state to another.  The argument’s scope is the crime rate increase in this state only.  In (B), the fact that white-collar crime is also on the rise is more of a strengthener than a weakener-maybe it is the leniency in the courtroom that is responsible for an overall crime surge.  (C) presents an alternative explanation for the increase in crime.  Maybe it is not the judges at all but the fact that there are fewer cops on the street.  As for (D), what if 65% of people in the state oppose capital punishment?  what if 100% of people in this state oppose capital punishment?  This provides little insight into why crime has gone up since last year.  (E) tells us that numerous judges have been replaced in the last year.  It is possible that the new judges are more lenient, but this would only strengthen the author’s conclusion.

The local high school students have been clamoring for the freedom to design their own curricula.  Allowing this would be as disastrous as allowing 3-year-olds to choose their own diets.  These students have neither the maturity nor the experience to equal that of the professional educators now doing the job.

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

A.  High school students have less formal education than those who currently design the curricula.

B.  3-year-olds do not, if left to their own devices, choose healthful diets.

C.  The local high school students are less intelligent than the average teenager.

D.  Individualized curricula are more beneficial to high school students than are the standard curricula, which are rigid and unresponsive to their particular strengths and weaknesses.

E.  The ability to design good curricula develops only after years of familiarity with educational life.

Think you know the answer?

The correct answer is E.

first, we need to understand the structure of the argument.  Here the statement, “Allowing this would be as disastrous as…” clues us into the author’s opinion.  Assumption:  One needs maturity and experience to design curricula.  If the assumption were true, the argument would be strengthened.  Check the answer choices, and look for one that affirms the assumption.  (A) is just a restatement of the evidence; this choice adds no new information.

In (B) the argument made an analogy:  “Allowing students to make their own curricula is as disastrous as letting 3-year-olds choose their own diets.”  If an argument uses an analogy to make a point, it had  better do so effectively.  The better the analogy, the stronger the argument.  This choice does strengthen the argument by showing the analogy to be true.  But the question asks for the best strengthener and a more relevant strengthener may be present.

(C) is a classic faulty comparison choice; it is also out of scope.  The author doesn’t distinguish between local high school students and average teenagers.  Moreover, the focus is on experience and maturity, not intelligence.  (D) shifts the focus of the argument from “who should or should not design curricula” to “what kind of curricula is best.”  Notice the scope change in this choice.  It’s tempting, especially since it brings up an intelligent point about tailoring to individuals, but that’s topic for a different discussion.  The best strengthener is (E), citing the experience needed to design curricula.

 

 

The extent to which society is really free can be gauged by its attitude toward artistic expression.  Freedom of expression can easily be violated in even the most outwardly democratic societies.  When a government arts council withholds funding from a dance performance that its members deem “obscene,” the voices of a few bureaucrats have in fact censored the work of the choreographer, thereby committing the real obscenity of repression.

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

A.  Members of government arts councils are screened to ensure that their beliefs reflect those of the majority.

B.  The term obscenity has several different definitions that should not be used interchangeably for rhetorical effect.

C.  Failing to provide financial support for a performance is not the same as actively preventing or inhibiting it.

D.  The council’s decision could be reversed if the performance were altered to conform to public standards of appropriateness.

E.  The definition of obscenity is something on which most members of a society can agree.

Think you know the answer?

The correct answer is C.

The author equates the withholding of government funding with censorship.  (C), which denies that they’re the same thing, destroys the argument.  (A) is irrelevant.  That the council’s actions may reflect majority opinion wouldn’t justify what the author considers censorship-her definition isn’t dependent on what most people think.  (B) complains that the term obscenity is used ambiguously, but it’s the term censorship that’s the problem here.  (D) misses the whole point; in the author’s view, denial of funding amounts to censorship, and (D) simply reaffirms this.  And (E), like (A), points to majority opinion, but since the author never denies that most people can agree on what’s obscene, this is beside the point.

Kaplan Strategy

For a Strengthen or Weaken Question, keep the following in mind:

• Weakening an argument is not the same as disproving a conclusion-and strengthening is not the same as proving.  A weakener tips the scale toward doubting the conclusion, while a strengthener tips the scale toward believing in the validity of the conclusion;
• The wording will always take the form of, “Which one of the following, if true, would most [weaken or strengthen] the argument?”  The “if true” part means that you have to accept the validity of the choice right off the bat, no matter how unlikely is may sound.
• Wrong answer choices in these questions often have the opposite of the desired effect.  So if you’re asked to strengthen a stimulus argument, a wrong choice will likely contain information that actually weakens the argument.  And when asked to weaken a stimulus, one answer choice is sure to strengthen the argument.  Pay attention to what the question stem is asking.

Sample Stems

The stems associated with these two question types are usually self-explanatory.  Here’s a list of what you can expect to see on Test Day:

Weaken:

• Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
• Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously damage the argument above?
• Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?
• Which one of the following, if true, is the most serious criticism of the argument above?

Strengthen:

• Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
• Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the conclusion in the argument above?
• The argument above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were found to be true?

It’s also common that the question stem explicitly refers to part of the argument.  You might, for example, see the following:

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the author’s conclusion that the Brookdale Public Library does not meet the requirements of the new building code?

This example illustrates another advantage of Basic Principle 2: Reading the question stem first.  Here we would be told outright what the author’s conclusion is, making the reading of the stimulus much easier to manage.

Determining an argument’s necessary assumption, as we’ve just seen, is required to answer and Assumption question.  But it also is required to answer another common type of question: Strengthen or Weaken the argument.

One way to weaken an argument is to  break down a central piece of evidence.  Another way is to attack the validity of any assumptions the author has made.  The answer to many Weaken the Argument questions is the one that reveals an author’s assumption to be unreasonable; conversely, the answer to many Strengthen the Argument questions provides additional support by affirming the truth of an assumption or by presenting more persuasive evidence.

Let’s use the same stimulus as before but in the context of these other question types:

Allyson plays volleyball for Central High School

Therefore, Allyson must be over 6 feet tall.

Remember the assumption holding this argument together?  It was that all volleyball players for Central High are over 6 feet tall.  That’s the assumption that makes or breaks the argument.  So, if you’re asked to weaken the argument, you’d want to attack that assumption:

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

Answer:  Not all volleyball players at Central High School are over 6 feet tall.

We’ve called into doubt the author’s basic assumption, thus damaging the argument.  But what about strengthening the argument?  Again, the key is the necessary assumption:

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

Answer:  All volleyball players at Central High School are over 6 feet tall.

Here, by confirming the author’s assumption, we’ve in effect bolstered the argument.

An assumption bridges the gap between an argument’s evidence and conclusion.  It’s a piece of support that isn’t explicitly stated, but that is required for the conclusion to remain valid.  When a question asks you to find an author’s assumption, it’s asking you to find the statement without which the argument falls apart

Denial Test

To test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, we can employ the Denial Test.  Here’s how it works:  Simply deny or negate the statement and see if the argument falls apart.  If it does, that choice is a necessary assumption.  If, on the other hand, the argument is unaffected, the choice is wrong.  Consider this simple stimulus:

Allyson plays volleyball for Central High School.

Therefore, Allyson must be over 6 feet tall.

You should recognize the second sentence as the conclusion and the first sentence as the evidence for it.  But is the argument complete?  Obviously not.  The piece that’s missing-the unstated link between the evidence and conclusion-is the assumption, and you could probably prephrase this one pretty easily:

All volleyball players for Central High School are over 6 feet tall.

Is this an assumption really necessary to the argument?  Let’s negate it using the Denial Test.  What if it’s not true that all volleyball players for Central High are taller than 6 feet?  Can we still logically conclude that Allyson must be taller than 6 feet?  No, we can’t.  Sure, she might be, but she also might not be.  By denying the statement, then, the argument falls to pieces; it is no longer valid.  And that’s our conclusive proof that the statement above is a necessary assumption of this argument.

So, we can use the Denial Test to chick whether a statement is an assumption, but what if we haven’t a clue about what the assumption is?  Is there a way to track it down?  Sure enough, there is?

Compare the ideas in the evidence with those in the conclusion.  If the conclusion has an idea (an important word) but the evidence does not, then you’ve found an assumption.  A new idea cannot occur in the conclusion, so there must be an assumption about this idea.  Every idea in the conclusion need support-that is, evidence.  While it may not be quite clear what the assumption is, knowing something about it allows us to prephrase and eliminate choices.

As we’ve just seen, you can often prephrase the answer to an Assumption question.  By previewing the question stem, you’ll know what to look for.  And stimuli for Assumption questions just “feel” as if they’re missing something.  Often, the answer will jump out at you, as it did here.  But in more difficult Assumption questions, it might not be so obvious.  Either way, use the Denial Test to quickly check whichever choice seems correct.

Sample Question Stems

Assumption questions are worded in some of the following ways:

• Which one of the following is assumed by the author?
• Upon which one of the following assumptions does the author rely?
• The argument depends on the assumption that?
• Which of the following, if added to the passage, will make the conclusion logical?
• The validity of the argument depends on which one of the following?
• The argument presupposes which one of the following?

Statistics show that more than half of the nation’s murder victims knew their assailants; in fact, 24% last year were killed by relatives.  Nor was death always completely unexpected.  In one study, about half the murder victims in a particular city had called for police protection at least 5 times during the 24 months before they were murdered.  Nonetheless, most people are more likely to fear being killed by a stranger in an unfamiliar situation than by a friend or relative at home.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the reaction of most people to the likelihood of being murdered?

A.  Statistics are likely to be discounted no matter what the source, if their implication seems to run counter to common sense.

B.  In the face of such upsetting problems as murder and assault, most people are more likely to react emotionally than rationally.

C.  A study taken in only one city is not likely to have an effect on attitudes until similar studies have been undertaken at the national level and have yielded similar results.

D.  Most people do not consider themselves to be in the high-risk groups in which murder occurs frequently between relations, but do see themselves as at least minimally susceptible to random violence.

E.  People who seek police protection from relatives and friends are often unwilling to press charges when the emotions of the moment have cooled.

 

The correct answer is: D

Most murder victims were killed by people they knew, yet most people are more likely to fear being killed by a stranger.  The best way to explain this apparent contradiction is (D):  Most people don’t believe they fall into the high-risk groups containing murderous friends and relations, but they do think they could be victims of random violence.

As for (A), did these people find it counter intuitive that most murder victims knew their killers?  We don’t know, so we can’t assume they dismissed the statistics.  (B)’s too vague to explain the discrepancy.  In light of the statistics, people’s fear of strangers seems irrational, but is it emotional?  A more emotional response might be to become terrified of being killed by one’s spouse or best friend.  (C) fails because national statistics already exist, as the firs sentence makes clear.  Finally, (E) might explain why people who knew they might be killed ended up dead, but it doesn’t resolve the discrepancy at hand.

Critical Reasoning Question 4

Critics of strict “promotional gates” at the grade school level point to a recent study comparing students forced to repeat a grade with those promoted despite failing scores on an unscheduled, experimental competency test. Since there was no significant difference between the two groups’ scores on a second test administered after completion of the next higher grade level, these critics argue that the retention policy has failed in its expressed purpose of improving students’ basic skills.

Which of the following best expresses the argument made by critics of promotional gates?

A. Anxiety over performance on standardized tests often hinders a student’s ability to master challenging new material.

B. A student’s true intellectual development cannot be gauged by his score on a standardized competency test.

C. The psychological damage a child suffers by repeating a grade outweighs the potential intellectual benefits of a second chance at learning.

D. Strict requirements for promotion do not lead to harder work and greater mastery of fundamentals among students fearful of being held back.

E. Socioeconomic factors as well as test scores influenced whether a given student in the study was promoted or forced to repeat a grade.

Think you know the answer?

 

Correct answer: D

Since the critics claim, based on the study’s results, that the policy of leaving students back doesn’t improve their skills, the best restatement of their view is (D). (A) fails for two reasons: one, the critics never hinted that test anxiety was the reason for poor performance, and two, (A) discusses “challenging new material”, whereas the tests in question assess students’ basic skills. In (B), we’re not interested in students’ “true intellectual development”-again, it’s their mastery of basic skills. Anyway, (B)’s criticism of standardized test scores tends to go against the critics’ argument, which is based on those very scores. The psychological damage of being left back, raised in (C), is well beyond the scope; the critics never hinted at this. Finally, (E) fails because the critics never discussed socioeconomic factors at all-just test scores.

 

The 7 Basic Principles Of Critical Reasoning

Here are the basic things that you need to succeed of CR questions:

 

 1. Understand the structure of an argument.

First, you must know how arguments are structures, so that you can know how to break them down into their core components. When we use the word argument, we don’t mean a conversation where 2 people are shouting at each other. An argument in Critical Reasoning means any piece of text where an author puts forth a set of ideas and/or a point of view, and attempts to support it.

Every GMAT argument is made up of two basic parts:

• The conclusion (the point that the author is trying to make)

• The evidence (the support that the author offers for the conclusion)

Success on this section hinges on your ability to identify these parts of the argument. There is no general rule about where conclusion and evidence appear in the argument-the conclusion could be the first sentence, followed by the evidence, or it could be the last sentence, with the evidence preceding it. Consider the stimulus (in other words, a passage):

 The Brookdale Public Library will require extensive physical rehabilitation to meet the new building codes passed by the town council. For one thing, the electrical system is in adequate, causing the lights to flicker sporadically. Furthermore, there are too few emergency exits, and even those are poorly marked and sometimes locker.

 Suppose that the author of this argument was allowed only one sentence to convey her meaning. Do you think she would waste her time with the following statement? Would she walk away satisfied that her main point was communicated?

The electrical system [at the Brookdale Public Library] is inadequate, causing the lights to flicker sporadically.

Probably not. Given a single opportunity, she would have to state the first sentence to convey her real purpose:

 The Brookdale Public Library will require extensive physical rehabilitation….

That is the conclusion. If you pressed the author to state her reasons for making that statement, she would then cite the electrical and structural problems with the building. That is the evidence for her conclusion.

But does that mean that an evidence statement like, “The electrical system in inadequate” can’t be a conclusion? No, we’re just saying it’s not the conclusion for this particular argument. Every idea, every new statement, must be evaluated in the context of the stimulus in which it appears.

For the statement above to serve as the conclusion, the stimulus would be:

The electrical wiring at the Brookdale Public Library was installed over 40 years ago, and appears to be corroded in some places (evidence). An electrician, upon inspection of the system, found a few frayed wires as well as some blown fuses (evidence). Clearly, the electrical system at the Brookdale Public Library is inadequate (conclusion).

 To succeed in Critical Reasoning, you have to be able to determine the precise function of every sentence in the stimulus. Use structural signals when attempting to isolate evidence and conclusion. Key words in the stimulus-such as because, for, since- usually indicate that evidence is about to follow, whereas therefore, hence, thus, and consequently usually signal a conclusion.

 

 2. Preview the question.

Before you read the stimulus, look over the question. This will give you some idea about what you need to look for as you read. It gives you a jump on the question. Suppose the question with the library argument above ask the following:

The author supports her point about the need for rehabilitation at the Brookdale library by citing which of the following?

If you were to preview this question stem before you read the stimulus, you would know what to look for in advance-namely, evidence, the “support” provided for the conclusion. Or if the question stem asked you to find an assumption on which the author is relying, you would know in advance that a crucial piece of the argument was missing, and you could think about that right off the bat.

Previewing the stem allows you to set the tone of your attack, and thus saves you time in the long run. As you’ll soon see, this technique will come in especially handy when we discuss methods for the various question types.

 

 3. Paraphrase the author’s point.

After you read the stimulus, paraphrase the author’s main argument to yourself. That is, restate the author’s ideas in your own words. Frequently, the authors in Critical Reasoning say pretty simple things in complex ways. So if you mentally translate the verbiage into a simpler form, the whole thing should be more manageable.

In the library argument, for instance, you probably don’t want to deal with the full complexity of the author’s stated conclusion:

 The Brookdale Public Library will require extensive physical rehabilitation to meet the new building codes just passed by the town council.

Instead, you probably want to paraphrase a much simpler point:

The library will need fixing-up to meet new codes.

Often, by the time you begin reading through the answer choices you run the risk of losing sight of the gist of the stimulus. So restating the argument in your own words will not only help you get the author’s point in the first place, it will also help you hold on ot it until you’ve found the correct answer.

 

4. Judge the argument’s persuasiveness.

You must read actively, not passively, like you might on the GMAT. Active readers are always thinking critically, forming reactions as they go along. They question whether the author’s argument seems valid or dubious. Especially when you are asked to find flaws in the author’s reasoning, it’s imperative to read with a critical eye.

How persuasive is the argument about the library, let’s ask? Well, it’s pretty strong, because the evidence certainly seems to indicate that certain aspects of the library’s structure need repair. But without more evidence about what the new building codes are like, we can’t say for sure that the conclusion of this argument is valid. So this is a strong argument but not an airtight one.

Since part of what you’re called on to do here is to evaluate arguments, don’t let yourself fall into the bad habits of the passive reader-reading solely for the purpose of getting through the stimulus. Those who read this way invariably find themselves having to read the stimuli twice or even three times. Then they’re caught short on time. Read the stimuli right the first time-with a critical eye and an active mind.

 

5. Answer the question being asked.

One of the most disheartening experiences in Critical Reasoning is to understand the author’s argument full but then supply an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. If you’re asked for an inference supported by the argument, selecting the choice that paraphrases the author’s conclusion will earn you no points. Neither will selecting a choice that looks vaguely like a summary of the author’s evidence if you’re asked for an assumption.

The classic example of this error occurs on “Strengthen/Weaken” questions. When you’re asked to strengthen or weaken an argument, you can be sure that there will be one, tow, even three answer choices that do the opposite of what’s asked. Choosing such a wrong choice is less a matter of failing to understand the argument than of failing to remember the task at hand.

The question stem will always ask for something very specific. It’s your job to follow the test makes’ line of reasoning to the credited response.

Also, be on the lookout for “reversers,” words such as not and except. These little words are easy to miss, but they change entirely the kind of statement you’re looking for among the choices.

 

 6. Try to “prephrase” an answer.

This principle, which is really an extension of the last one, is crucial. You must try to approach the answer choices with at least a faint idea of what the answer should look like. That is, “prephrase” the answer in your own mind before looking at the choices. This isn’t to say you should ponder the question for minutes-it’s still a multiple-choice test, so the right answer is on the screen. Just get in the habit of framing an answer in your head.

Once you have prephrased, scan the choices. Sure, the correct choice on the exam will be worded differently and will be more fleshed out than your vague idea. But if it matches your thought, you’ll know it in a second. And you’ll find that there’s no more satisfying feeling in Critical Reasoning than prephrasing correctly, and then finding the correct answer quickly and confidently.

Continuing with the library situation, suppose you were asked:

The author’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions about the new building codes?

Having thought about the stimulus argument, you might immediately come up with an answer-here that the argument is based on the assumption that the new codes apply to existing buildings as well as to new buildings under construction. After all, the library will have to be rehabilitated to meet the new codes, according to the author. Clearly, the assumption is that the codes apply to existing buildings. And that’s the kind of statement you would look for among the choices.

Don’t be discouraged if you can’t always prephrase an answer. Some questions just won’t have an answer that jumps out at you. But if used correctly, prephrasing works on many questions. It will really boost your confidence and increase your speed on the section when you can come up with a glimmer of what the right answer should look like, and then have it jump right off the page at you.

 

7. Keep the scope of the argument in mind.

When you’re at the point of selecting one of the answer choices, focus on the scope of the argument. Most of the wrong choices on the section are wrong because they are “outside the scope.” In other words, the wrong answer choices contain elements that don’t match the author’s ideas or that go beyond the context of the stimulus.

Some answer choices are too narrow, too broad, or have nothing to do with the author’s points. Others are too extreme to match the argument’s scope-they’re usually signaled by such words as all, always, never, none, and so on. For arguments that are moderate in tone, correct answers are more qualified and contain such words as usually, sometimes, probably.

To illustrate the scope principle, let’s look again at the question mentioned above:

The author’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions about the new building codes?

Let’s say one of the choices read as follows:

The new building codes are far too stringent.

Knowing the scope of the argument would help you to eliminate this choice very quickly. You know that this argument is just a claim about what the new codes will require: that the library be rehabilitated. It’s not an argument about whether the requirements of the new codes are good, are justifiable, ore ridiculously strict. That kind of value judgment is outside the scope of this argument.

Recognizing scope problems is a great way to eliminate dozens of wrong answers quickly.