Theory
Critical Reasoning questions are comprehension questions based on a small paragraph. These questions test your comprehension skills. Primarily, there are three important elements in any critical reasoning question. They are the premise, the conclusion and the assumption.
- A premise is a fact stated in the passage and can be assumed to be true. All conclusions are derived on the basis of these facts and implicit assumptions hidden within the stated inferences.
- A conclusion is a stated inference based on the given premises.
- An assumption is a fact that is not explicitly stated in the paragraph but is necessary to arrive at the conclusion stated in the paragraph. If an assumption is proved to be false, the conclusion of the paragraph will be invalidated.
Tips
- To strengthen the conclusion, find the assumption in the passage and choose the option that bolsters the assumption.
- To weaken the conclusion, find the assumptions in the passage and choose the option that attacks the assumption.
Solved Example
Question for Cheatsheet: Critical Reasoning
Try yourself:The Americans with disabilities act (ADA) was designed to ensure that there is no discrimination against and unfair termination of differently-abled workers in the workplace. However, after the act was introduced, there has been a marked increase in unemployment among the differently-abled.
Explanation
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
An Act that was designed to help the differently-abled seems to have had a detrimental effect on their employment levels.
This seeming contradiction in the argument has to be removed by adding information that will explain the lower employment levels after the introduction of the Act. The correct option should also accept that the law was designed to help the differently-abled and not question its motives.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) can be eliminated because it does not explain why the differently-abled chose not to work at a time when the government is making things easier for them to work.
Option (C) can be eliminated because the option seems to imply that the Act tried to prevent the termination of the employment of the differently-abled, when the argument does not say so. Also, the option seems to imply that the differently-abled were treated unfairly – implying that the Act is a failure.
Option (D) does not explain why unemployment has increased. There has never been an Act guaranteeing jobs. So why has the unemployment among the differently-abled increased now?
Option (E) is irrelevant to the discussion. The Act and the discussion on unemployment is pertinent only to the differently-abled and the situation faced by the able-bodied has no impact on this scenario.
Option (B) resolves the paradox by explaining why the unemployment among the differently-abled has increased. Because companies want to avoid future complications (that may be caused by the Act), they have reduced employment.
Option B is the correct answer.
Report a problem
Question for Cheatsheet: Critical Reasoning
Try yourself:In an effort to curb drug abuse, the government has imposed strict laws to prosecute the dealers. However, such an initiative is unlikely to be effective. Prosecuting dealers will lead to a shortage of drugs. At the same time, because no efforts are being taken to curb demand, drugs will be sold at a premium, attracting more people to the very remunerative job of drug dealing. Therefore, to effectively reduce drug abuse, the government will have to prosecute the drug users and not dealers.
Which of the following is the most relevant information in evaluating the credibility of the argument?
Explanation
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The author believes that the government should prosecute drug users and not dealers in order to control drug abuse.
In order to evaluate the argument, the answer option has to evaluate this suggestion made by the author. So, the correct option would be one that determines one or all of the following
whether prosecuting drug users is possible
if possible, then will such a measure be as or more effective than prosecuting drug dealers
whether for some reason, the current steps taken by the government are effective in tackling drug abuse.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) can be eliminated because what worked in other countries need not necessarily work in this one. The answer option has to evaluate whether the recommendation would work in this particular scenario.
Option (B) can be eliminated because if the payoffs are outweighing the punishment, that would mean that there would be more dealers involved in drug dealing. The argument implies that this will already happen so this option does nothing to evaluate the author’s recommendation.
Option (C) does not evaluate whether drug abuse would reduce or increase. What needs to be evaluated is drug usage and not drug dealing. For similar reasons, Option (E) can also be eliminated. Keeping track of new dealers does not necessarily keep track of drug dealing or usage.
Option (D) evaluates the argument because the author’s primary argument against the government’s actions is that the current efforts will not curb drug usage, and that sale of drugs will continue happening at a premium. However, if most drug users do not wish to pay the premium charged, then the sale and usage of drugs will come down and the government’s current measures will prove to be effective enough.
Option D is the correct answer
Report a problem
Question for Cheatsheet: Critical Reasoning
Try yourself:Alan: In the last 15 years, most of the criminals who were convicted of theft or murder were from the lower income classes and had not completed high school. Therefore, the government has to spend more money on reducing poverty and increase funding to education. Because terrorism is the most severe of all crimes, such measures would bring down overall crime rate and reduce threat from terrorism.
Dylan: A study that was conducted in a country known to produce a number of terrorists showed that on average the terrorists were better educated than the overall population and that they did not necessarily come from lower income classes. This is probably because crimes such as theft are committed for personal gain while terrorism is for political or religious gain.
Explanation
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
Alan’s argument is that the government should take steps to reduce poverty in an effort to reduce all kinds of crime from petty theft to terrorism.
Dylan quotes a study in another country that showed that the motives behind theft and terrorism are not the same and that tackling one need not tackle the other.
Essentially, Dylan agrees with one part of Alan’s argument (that financial reasons motivate theft), disagrees with another part (terrorism is not motivated by financial factors but rather political or religious factors) and hence believes that the recommendation made by Alan to the government would not be effective.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
Option (A) can be eliminated because Dylan is not entirely changing the direction of the conversation. Even if the study he quotes is about another country, he is still focusing on the factors that motivate crime.
Option (C) can be eliminated because Dylan is not broadening but questioning Alan’s argument. For (C) to be true, Dylan must be saying something along the lines that the conclusion that Alan has drawn apply universally to all countries.
Option (E) can also be eliminated. The two are arriving at different conclusions but (E) claims that they are arriving at the same conclusion.
At first glance, both options (B) and (D) look like they are representing Dylan’s reasoning. However, Dylan is not refuting Alan’s recommendation itself but the effectiveness of the recommendation – He is not saying the government must not alleviate poverty but rather than alleviating poverty will not necessarily curb terrorism. Option (B) can therefore, be eliminated.
Option (D) works because Alan is assuming that what is true for theft is true for terrorism and Dylan is pointing out that it need not be the case.
Option D is the correct answer.
Report a problem
Question for Cheatsheet: Critical Reasoning
Try yourself:During the last 50 years in England, the national football team has had at least 60℅ of its players born during the months January to March. Similarly, in Germany, at least 50℅ of the team has been born during the first three months of the year. In fact, this statistic holds true for most European countries. This shows that in most European countries, parents with kids born early in the year are more likely to encourage a football career.
Which of the following best explains why the conclusion need not be the best explanation for the statistic?
Explanation
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The author believes that the parents who have kids in the first quarter of the new year are more likely to encourage their kids to have a football career.
The question asks to identify an option that points out that the author’s reasoning may be flawed. Essentially, the correct option must provide an alternative explanation for the statistic that shows that a significant portion of the players on the teams were born in the first quarter.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
The correct option must explain why more members of the team were born in the first quarter and not just talk about the number or percentage of births during the other months of the year. Therefore, Options (A) and (E) are irrelevant to the discussion and do not refute or support the author’s reasoning.
Option (B) adds strength to the argument. If the parents who had kids in the second half of the year prefer that their kids have scholarly careers, it stands to reason that the number of team members born in the first quarter is high because their parents encouraged their football careers.
Option (D) is linking vacation months to encouragement to play football. The argument is discussing the link between birth month and encouragement to play football. The relationship discussed in the option has no ties to the argument and does not refute or strengthen the argument.
According to Option (C) the cut-off dates for trials is December 31. If that were the scenario, the kids born earlier in any year would be older than kids born later in the year and will have an edge over the younger kids. The option implies that there are more players born in the first quarter because they had an edge over the other players, as kids, and not because of parental support. The option thus questions the author’s argument.
Option C is the correct answer.
Report a problem
