Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Aim
Why do they fear it so? Because the world as we know it is not logical.
For Critical Reasoning questions, you must be purely and consistently logical. With each CR question, youll be presented with an argument. Dont try to break down the argument into its essential parts. Instead, reorder the information. Reorder the information; identifying the premises and conclusion inherent within each argument.
By deconstructing a Critical Reasoning argument, you can more clearly see what it is thats missing. Deconstructing an argument helps you notice illogical connections. The tendency to make sense of what we read is natural and, for the GMAT, fatal. Fight your normal reading habits as you go through the questions in this lesson.
For example
You: Me:
We cant go to a movie.
Make sure youre not brining outside information into your reading of a Critical Reasoning problem.
I cant believe I saw Joe drinking a Coke. Why? Because Joe works for Pepsi.
Whats your conclusion? Joe prefers Coca Cola. Joe hates his job. Joe is a spy for Pepsi.
Be careful! What kinds of assumptions are you making to reach these conclusions?
On Thursday I wore a blue shirt. On Friday I had a headache. Therefore, my blue shirt gives me a headache.
This is a dumbed-down version of a Critical Reasoning problem. Its easy to argue with my logic when I present my argument so simply.
Be always suspicious of CR arguments. Fight with them. What could you say that would undermine my argument? Perhaps I was out all night last Thursday. Maybe I live next door to an airport. Any of these statements could severely undermine, or weaken, my argument. And what could you add that would completely destroy it?
Theres no connection between the headache and the shirt This piece of information would completely destroy my argument. And the reverse, that there is a direct connection between the headache and the shirt, would completely fix it. Now take a look at my revised argument
On Thursday I wore a blue shirt. On Friday I had a headache. My health is affected by the clothes I wear. Therefore, my blue shirt gives me a headache.
Youll never find an argument like this in a Critical Reasoning problem. Its too logical!
Critical Reasoning questions ask you to do several things, but central to them all is having an understanding of the basic structure of an argument. Your task as you approach CR questions will be to break down an illogical argument into its stated premises and conclusion. If you can do this, youll be able to spot any trick that ETS test-makers throw at you.
There are several different types of Critical Reasoning questions. Differentiating between them is difficult, and youll have to know the approach for each of them when you sit down to take the test.
Key Terms
Argument Central to every CR question is the argument. An argument is an ordered line of reasoning composed of premises, assumptions, and a conclusion. Understanding the elements of an argument is essential to performing well in this section. Premise Each CR argument contains at least one premise. Premises are pieces of information that provide evidence used to support the conclusion of the argument. For the purposes of Critical Reasoning arguments, premises are facts not subject to dispute. Conclusion The conclusion is the endpoint of the line of reasoning of an argument. Think of it as the result of the argument. The line of reasoning leading to a conclusion is often where errors in logic are made.
Key Terms
Assumption Assumptions are unstated facts and logical connections in an argument. In order for the conclusion of an argument to be true, the assumptions upon which that argument is based must also be true.
The Approach
The Approach
Critical Reasoning questions test your ability to use basic logic to analyze and critique arguments made up of premises and conclusions. ETS test-makers write arguments that assume information which doesnt exist! A logical and consistent approach is the best way to avoid formulaic traps.
Follow these steps each time you attack Critical Reasoning questions.
Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Read the question first. Read the argument. Paraphrase the argument using your own words. Predict the answer. Use the process of Error Identification to eliminate the wrong answers.
Step 1: Read the question first. Its natural to read the question after the argument because thats how theyre presented on the page. This is done for a reason. Reading the argument first is confusing. Read the question and determine what to look for within the answer choices. In general, youll be looking for the answer choices that either strengthen or weaken the argument. Think of answer choices as additional premises. Adding any one answer choice to the argument will do one of three things:
1. 2. 2. 3.
It will weaken the argument. It will strengthen the argument. It will not affect the argument at all (neutral). It has nothing to do with the argument (out of scope).
Determine which of the eight kinds of Critical Reasoning questions youre facing before turning to the argument itself.
Step 2: Read the argument. 1. Identify each premise (each piece of information) that is being presented within the argument. 2. Identify the arguments conclusion. 3. Determine what assumptions are being made.
Critical Reasoning arguments are intentionally heavy, wordy and complex. Paraphrasing is a good way of understanding the sense an argument presented.
Take the time, if necessary, and restate an argument, using words and situations that you can relate to. Note: This is the only step youre permitted to skip. While its necessary to understand the meaning of each argument (and paraphrasing is a good tool to help you do this), restating or paraphrasing an argument brings you unavoidably further away from the actual text.
Step 4: Predict the answer. So, youve read the argument. You understand it. You can identify its premises and its conclusion. Now imagine additional premises (additional pieces of information) and what affect each would have on the argument overall. Brainstorm for a moment. Imagine which additional premise would best strengthen the argument. What one thing could you add that would completely fix it? Now imagine the opposite. How could you weaken the argument? How could you completely destroy it?
This is perhaps the most important step in the process. Answer choices are intentionally misleading, and you can use your predictions as a measuring stick with which to compare the choices given to you by ETS.
Step 5: Use the Process of Error Identification to eliminate the wrong answers.
Think of answer choices as additional premises. As you read each choice, ask yourself, How would this additional premise affect the strength or weakness of the arguments conclusion?
Categorize answer choices as one of the following: 1. 2. 2. 3. Strengthen Weaken Neutral Out of scope
Use the Process of Error Identification to get rid of any choices that do not affect the conclusion (neutral) or have nothing to do with the argument whatsoever (out of scope). Whether you eliminate strengthen or weaken answer choices depends on the question related with that argument. Try the following Critical Reasoning example, using five steps
In years past, professional baseball players lifted weights less but were also injured less often during games. Obviously, the more an athlete lifts weights, the higher the likelihood of injury. The conclusion above presupposes which of the following? (A) The increase in baseball injuries is due to a factor other than weightlifting. (B) The activities of baseball players represent those of athletes as a group. (C) Most baseball injuries today result from too much weightlifting. (D) There is no proven correlation between how much athletes lift weights and how likely they are to be affected by injury. (E) Weightlifting has always been common practice for professional athletes.
Premise #1: In years past, professional baseball players lifted weights less. Premise #2: But they were also injured less often during games. Conclusion: Obviously, the more an athlete lifts weights, the higher the likelihood of injury.
Restate or paraphrase the argument, if necessary. Stick as close to the actual text as possible.
If necessary, paraphrase the argument. Put the events in a context you can understand, but stick as close to the actual text as possible. Try changing the subjects without changing what they did.
Keep trying until the GMAT argument makes sense to you. return to the actual argument! Then
Now, think about some of the big assumptions that are being made. Ask yourself what you could add to fix the argument. What could you add to the argument to completely destroy it! If it helps, imagine someone you cant stand. Think up a real or fictional know-it-all. Now come up with the one thing you could say to this person that would shut him up. What if I offered evidence that proved baseball injuries are definitely not a result of weightlifting? That might destroy the argument. And the contrary, that baseball injuries definitely are a result of weightlifting, might fix it.
(A) The increase in baseball injuries is due to a factor other than weightlifting. (B) The activities of baseball players represent those of athletes as a group. (C) Most baseball injuries today result from too much weightlifting. (D) There is no proven correlation between how much athletes lift weights and how likely they are to be affected by injury. (E) Weightlifting has always been common practice for professional athletes.
Weakens
Neutral
Which of the following, if true, would be the strongest objection to the argument above?
(A) Consumption of the produce declined from 1991 to 1993, but rose sharply from 1994 to 1996. (B) Several areas in which use of the pesticide was forbidden have also experienced a drop in produce prices. (C) The amount of produce grown in 1991 was larger than that of 1996. (D) The time since the beginning of the use of the pesticide has been too short to allow some of the predicted effects to occur. (E) Since 1992, new pesticides have been developed that scientists agree are relatively risk-free.
In 1991, I started smoking cigarettes. My friends said it is unhealthy. In 2000, I am still Okay: Therefore; cigarettes are not unhealthy.
Theres a fatal flaw to this logic. Look back and compare this rephrasing with the actual argument itself.
Good job!
In 1991, I started smoking cigarettes. My friends said it is unhealthy. In 2000, I am still Okay: Therefore; cigarettes are not unhealthy.
Theres a fatal flaw to this logic. Look back and compare this rephrasing with the actual argument itself.
Good luck!
Click on the Next Screen button to see a brief description of these eight Critical Reasoning question types.
8. Except questions
Fire!
A scientist planted two groups of plants under identical conditions of light, temperature, humidity, and moisture. Every day he would play sound effects of thunderstorms to one of the groups of plants and sounds of city traffic for the other. The group to which he played thunderstorms all died within a few weeks, but the other group thrived during the experiment. He therefore concluded that the sound of city traffic is more effective for helping plants grow than is the sound of thunderstorms. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the scientists conclusion? (A) The scientist put different varieties of plants in each group. (B) The light affecting the plants changed according to the time of day. (C) The plants in the group for which he played city traffic sounds died several weeks after the experiment. (D) The plants were all purchased at the same time. (E) The plants in the group for which he played city traffic sounds required more water than the scientist actually gave them. Click on the oval that corresponds with your choice.
Youve got it! We know we have two groups of plants. Whats assumed is that both groups are the same!
Try a harder one
In response to years of increasing congestion at airport X, the government decided to redistribute landing slots. Henceforth, all international flights arriving from continent A would be rerouted to nearby airport Y, all flights arriving from continent B would continue to land at airport X. Several airlines opposed this measure on the grounds that it would result in lost business.
Sorry, the correct answer is (A). Lets look at this problem using the MBA Centers five steps.
Who said the plants in both groups are the same? Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Read the question first. Read the argument. Paraphrase the argument using your own words. Predict the answer. Use the process of Error Identification to eliminate the wrong answers. Imagine a piece of new information that would destroy the argument.
Identify the premises, the conclusion, and the flaw (the assumption).
Right again!
This ones harder still
Kobayashi coffee has more caffeine than Marlowe Select coffee. But since Chula Vista coffee has more caffeine than Valentino coffee, it follows that Kobayashi coffee has more caffeine than Valentino coffee. Any of the following, if introduced into the argument as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT?
(A) Marlowe Street coffee has more caffeine than Valentino coffee. (B) Marlowe Street corree has more caffeine than Chula Vista coffee. (C) Marlowe Street and Chula Vista coffees have the same amount of caffeine. (D) Kobayashi and Chula Vista coffees have the same amount of caffeine. (E) Chula Vista coffee has more caffeine than Kobayashi coffee.
Sorry, the correct answer is (E). Lets look at this problem using the MBA Centers five steps.
Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Read the question first. Read the argument. Paraphrase the argument using your own words. Predict the answer. Use the process of Error Identification to eliminate the wrong answers. Imagine a piece of new information that would destroy the argument.
Eliminate any answer choices that strengthen or are out of scope. If necessary, translate it into something that makes sense. Make it personal. Identify the premises, the conclusion, and the flaw (the assumption).
It has often been hypothesized that global oil consumption, which increases every year, will deplete the supply of oil, with catastrophic results for the global economy. However, these claims never stand up to scrutiny, as the volume of oil in reserves around the world has remained constant. Which one of the following, if true, best resolves the apparent paradox?
(A) The actual annual consumption of oil is below that which many experts estimate. (B) The cost of operating oil refineries has steadily decreased over time. (C) The consumption of oil has greatly increased in the past 50 years. (D) It is the policy of all major oil producers to locate new reserves at a rate consistent with that at which old reserves are depleted. (E) The number of oil-producing countries has been steadily declining.
Use the Process of Error Identification to eliminate answer choices (B), (C) and (E). Those weaken the argument. Answer choice (D) is neutral. Some lines are used by many more riders than others. This tells us nothing.
Click on the Previous Section button and try these questions again.
Right again! Wow, youre a Critical Reasoning wiz. You ought to go on television. This ones even more difficult
The owners of gambling casinos are keen to attract inexperienced poker players because, on average, these people lose money to the casino, which increases the casinos profits. This is because the average inexperienced player does not have sufficient skill at the game to win. Which one of the following can be inferred from the above argument? (A) There is always an element of chance when playing poker. (B) The probability of winning a game of poker increases with experience. (C) Casinos make extremely large profits. (D) Inexperienced players lose more money than they expect to when playing poker at casinos. (E) All games played at casinos involve an element of risk.
Which of the following best completes the passage? Critics of Country As trade policy with Country Z contend that Country As low tariffs are responsible for its large trade deficit with Country Z. Government officials, however, argue that there is a trade deficit with Country Z because low labor costs in Country Z allow its companies to manufacture goods cheaply. The officials also claim that economic competition from Country Z is responsible for better prices for Country As consumers. Therefore, they say, the most logical way to lower the trade deficit without hurting Country As consumers is to _________. (A) (B) (C) (D) raise the tariffs on goods imported from Country Z encourage businesses in Country A to reduce their labor costs increase taxes on all goods not manufactured in Country A improve the products manufactured by Country As companies and market them heavily in Country A (E) subsidize all of Country As companies that manage to maintain their prices at the level of the goods produced by Country Z
Critical Reasoning
Got you that time! You did well, and you only had problems with the final difficult problem.
Critical Reasoning
Good job! You got the second wrong, but the other two were right.
Critical Reasoning
Inference is once logical step away from the conclusion. Be careful! This one is an Inference question. The best answer will paraphrase words and ideas from the text and contain an inference just one step in logic away from the message of the text. Whats inferred in the argument that a player must have skill to win!
(B) is the best answer. I got you on that one. Well done, though.
Critical Reasoning
Good job! You got the first one wrong, but you pulled it back up with two and three.
Critical Reasoning
Sorry. You got the second problem right, but the other two were wrong.
Critical Reasoning
What can I say?
Critical Reasoning
Sorry. You got the first question right, but you answered the next two wrong.
Critical Reasoning
Got you that time! Well done, though. You got four out of five right. Keep it up and youll be on your way to Harvard!
Summary
Summary