Critical Reasoning Questions for CAT with Answers PDF

The findings can impact the result of elections only if there is evidence that such tampering indeed took place and was material in substance.

If miscreants re-adjust their nuisance timings to exclude the restrictive hours; if students often move after 8.00 pm; if law enforcement agencies identify the potential miscreants in advance; and if most criminal acts are not committed after 8.00 pm, the argument will lose much of its relevance. Option (3), in fact, is the only one that is not inherently assumed.

Clearly, the proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposits for longer duration (the rate of interest being the same for short duration) and not draw in more funds.
So, argument I only will be strong.
Now, if the interest will be the same, then people obviously will not be encouraged to keep more money in bank.
However, if high interest (varied interest) is kept for high amounts, then people will be encouraged to keep more money. So, argument II is not strong.
Hence, option b is the correct answer.

Both the given arguments are strong. Hike in fuel prices would lead to a decline in demand of fuel and as a result of which exploitation of natural resources would decrease.
Argument II is also strong as it is better to spend more money on conducting research and developing technology to use renewable energy resources.
But, as both the given arguments present two opposite views option 3 is the correct answer.

Argument I is strong as it presents a logical reason to support unpaid community work to be done by juvenile criminals.
Argument II is weak as it doesn't provide a reason that justifies the mandate that asks juvenile criminals to do unpaid community work. It further presents view about the kind of community work that must be offered.
So, option (a) is the correct answer.

Assumption I is not implicit as nothing has been said about his current position.
Assumption II is implicit because first role suggests that Satya Nadella played more than one role in the company. Only if the hiring manager was impressed, Satya Nadella got his first role.
So, option d is the correct answer.

Argument I provides a rational solution to the problem, so it can be considered a strong argument. Argument II is weak as it is not a reasonable cause to restrict tourism.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.

Statement A provides an opinion talking about the importance of interpersonal relations, which makes it a judgement.
Statement B uses the word 'cited' which indicates that it is a fact.
Statement C uses the word 'assuming' which makes it clear that it presents an inference.
Statement D is a fact as it lays down the information according to a study.

Statements 1 and 2 are judgements as they are purely opinions with no trace of facts. Statement 3 is a fact. Statement 4 is an inference that contains an opinion (Indian government is planning to create public-private partnerships with companies to provide skill training to youth) based on the fact (More young people live in India than in any other country).

Option (a) tends to support the logic given in the passage by making a positive link between the demand for houses and interest rates. Thus, it is ruled out.
Option (b) talks of an opinion expressed by some people, but the words believe and some render it doubtful.
Options (c) and (d) are irrelevant as they talk of the homeowners` motive and availability of houses, both of which are irrelevant to this discussion.
Price-inelastic demand in a certain sector means that the demand will not change as a result of change in prices. It ultimately means that even if mortgage loan rates are reduced, it will do nothing to stimulate the demand for more houses. Hence, option (d) is the right answer.

Option (a), in no way, strengthens the social scientists` logic as it only talks of the possible reason why the disadvantaged group need to be given job quotas.
Option (b) is absolutely irrelevant as disposable income in their hands is not the focus of discussion.
Option (d) is again wrong for it only indicates the organizations` belief about the policy but whether it actually leads to their improvement is still a moot point.
Option (e) is quite vague and therefore, is ruled out.
The correct answer (option c) links the two variables i.e. quotas and socio-economic improvement, and is therefore, the best choice. 

Note the difference between the language used in option (a) and (d). It is carrying a vastly different meaning in each case. For this reason, option (a) is definitely ruled out as depression and anxiety are not responsible for creative pursuits. So is true of option (b), which is very extreme in nature.
Nowhere does the author give any hint which could justify either option (c) or (e). Hence, option (d) is the correct answer.

The 'alienation' that the author talks of is not from 'Engineering Journal' but from 'Books For Professional Readers'. The author's argument is that by naming the new column as Books For Professional Readers, reviewing serious literature in that column and printing it opposite the regular column 'Books For Your Enjoyment', the readers of the magazine will be forced to think that serious literature is not for enjoyment; and therefore, they will refrain from reading the books reviewed in the new column. Choice (b) says that the new column, because of its name, will somehow or the other, tend to repel readers as they will think that these are not for their liking. So, choice (b) is the answer.

This is a simple inference type of question. When only planted acreage is compared, Indian yields are greater but when total agricultural acreage is compared, then Chinese yields are greater. This obviously means that India has more fallow area as compared to China, because only this would lead to the desired results. (To simplify the procedure, use the simple formula Yield = (Total Output) divided by (Planted Area + Fallow Area)
The correct answer choice is option a. As a precaution, please note that nowhere are we told about the total planted area or total fallow area in India or China.
Options b and d are incorrect as the proportion of planted acreage and fallow acreage in China or India is unclear from the argument.
Option c is negated by the use of 'available' agricultural land. The difference between fallow and not available is hazy.

The argument seeks to arrive at absolute figure from percentages. This may prove to be much trickier than it sounds. Unless we know the current prices of both, we cannot possibly authenticate the conclusion.