Personal GMAT CAT Critical Reasoning Introduction You can think of critical reasoning questions as, essentially, mini reading comprehension questions. These questions tend to follow passages that are one paragraph in length. These questions primarily test the analytical and critical thinking skills that admissions committees so badly want to see in their applicants. A college course in logic may help you with these questions, but it is certainly not a necessity. Many individuals who never took logic as undergrads have scored 750 or higher on the GMAT. With some preparation, you too can learn to think logically and ace these GMAT questions. A nice added benefit to preparing yourself for critical reasoning GMAT CAT questions is that this preparation will also help you in your business school studies. Many of the same techniques used to answer these test questions will come in handy when you are asked to do case analyses. (This should be an extra incentive for those of you intent on pursuing consulting careers.) Types of Critical Reasoning Questions Critical reasoning questions will ask you to: 1. Strengthen an argument. 2. Weaken an argument. 3. Identify a parallel argument. 4. Identify the assumption. 5. Identify the inference. 6. Select the best conclusion. Our Preferred Approach to Critical Reasoning Questions 1.) Read the question before reading the passage. Know what you should be looking for before you begin reading the passage. You will want to approach the same passage a little bit differently, depending on whether you are asked to destroy an argument, or to find the best conclusion to the passage. Also – and we feel we can not say this enough – read the questions carefully. The test makers will deliberately include answer choices that give 'right' answers to wrong questions. 2.) Identify the passage's assumptions and conclusion. This can be tricky. GMAT passages do not always present their conclusions in their final sentences. Sometimes they imply, rather than state, their conclusions. This is a great illustration of where our general tip of "practice, practice, practice" will come in handy. Look for these patterns: A paragraph may start off with its conclusion in the first sentence, and then give several sentences to support that conclusion. This means you will not be able to look for transition words such as "consequently", "hence", and "as a result" that are commonly used to indicate the conclusion. Personal An assumption is the passage's "must have." In other words, if the assumption is not true, it follows that the conclusion is not true. We have a simple method for identifying assumptions. Read each sentence in the passage individually, and then ask yourself if the conclusion would still be true if this one sentence was incorrect. 3.) Try to guess the correct answer before you even read the answer choices. Often your hunch will be correct. This will help you focus on selecting the best answer. 4.) Read every answer choice. Don't settle for choosing the first one that seems right to you. You may find another answer choice that is even better than the one you initially selected. Eliminate the ones you know are wrong. Carefully analyze the remaining choices with a focus on identifying the one that presents the most relevant arguments and raises the most relevant issues. Critical Reasoning Tips and Strategies The most common type of critical reasoning question asks you to weaken an argument. The GMAT testers expect you to be able to identify one of the following 4 logic flaws: 1. Circular reasoning 2. Inaccurate cause-and-effect arguments 3. Sweeping generalizations 4. Unqualified "expert" opinions These tips and strategies can help you answer these questions correctly: 1. Utilize process of elimination. When the test taker is asked to identify the statement that does the best job of strengthening or weakening an argument, there is almost always at least one answer choice that will do the opposite. If you have read the question carefully, you will be able to quickly eliminate these choices. 2. Become comfortable at "working backwards" on these questions. "Working backwards" – inserting each answer choice into the text and and seeing if the passage still makes sense – is an excellent technique to fall back on if you get stuck on a critical reasoning question. However, it can be time consuming. You may need to re-read a passage 5 times, inserting a different answer choice each time, before you find the choice that seems right to you. 3. Never choose an answer simply because it is true. The answer choice must be a logical extension of the argument made in the passage. 4. Ignore decoys. Often times, GMAT passages contain extraneous sentences and information. Learn to separate these decoys from the rest of the passage so they won't distract you from the content that is important. 5. Avoid answer choices that are emotionally charged or 'over the top.' The correct GMAT answer choices are always emotionally neutral in tone, and moderate in reasoning. 6. Avoid answer choices that make absolute statements. Absolute statements are those that use words such as "always" and "must." The test writers are very biased against these types of Personal statements. Hence, when you encounter an answer choice that makes an absolute statement, you will know that it can be safely eliminated. DENIAL TEST. One of the types of critical reasoning questions you'll see on the GMAT is the assumption. 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. In order to test whether a statement is necessarily assumed by an author, we can employ the Denial Test. 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 the following example: Allyson plays volleyball for Central High School. Therefore, Allyson must be over six 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 is the assumption, and you could probably rephrase this one pretty easily: All volleyball players for Central High School are over six feet tall. Now, let's use the Denial Test. What if it's not true that all volleyball players for Central High School are over six feet tall? Can we still logically conclude that Allyson must be taller than six feet? No, we can't. Sure, it's possible that she is, but it's also possible that she's not. By denying the statement, then, the argument falls to pieces; it's simply no longer valid. And that's our conclusive proof that the statement above is a necessary assumption of this argument. Critical Reasoning questions are one third of the Verbal section of the GMAT exam. These questions are designed to test one's logic and reasoning skills, particularly in evaluating arguments. The questions themselves could deal with almost any subject matter, and no familiarity with that subject matter is assumed or required. This tutorial aims to give you the tools to find the answer that ETS wnat you to find which is just what you need to raise your score. The GMAT's Critical Reasoning is intended to be an effective way of evaluating how people reason. However, the truth is that the logic in many of the questions is less than completely sound. There is definitely room for interpretation on many of these questions, judging from many examples taken from old GMAT tests. But there is little you can do about that - they make up the questions, they make up the rules. You could cry about it. Go ahead, have a good cry. We will wait. .......... Feel better? Good. Now let's take a look at how we can best this test to obtain the best score we possibly can. A Critical Reasoning Problem is comprised of three main parts: the text, the question, and the five answer choices. We will deal with the different types of questions later. Here's an example of a Critical Reasoning text: Personal A CEO of a major company noted a serious decline in worker productivity during the previous five years. According to a report done by an outside consultant, productivity dropped by 35% by the end of that period. The CEO has therefore initiated a plan to boost productivity by giving employees shares of the company as part of their pay package. We can use the text above to show the four different parts of a Critical Reasoning text. Conclusion/Main Idea - Most problems have a central idea or thesis. This is almost always located in the sentence at the beginning of the text, or in the sentence at the very end. In this case, it is at the end of the passage: The CEO has therefore initiated a plan to boost productivity by giving employees shares of the company as part of their pay package. Notice the word therefore in that sentence. Words like therefore, thus, hence, and so usually tell us that this is the conclusion or the main idea. Let these words lead you to the main idea. Premise - Premises are the facts or evidence that support or lead to the conclusion. Unlike assumptions, they are explicit. Here is an example from the text: A CEO of a major company noted a serious decline in worker productivity during the previous five years. This premise helps the author lead to the conclusion or main idea of the text. Assumption- Assumptions are the facts that support the conclusion, like the premise does, but unlike the conclusion and premises they are not stated in the text: they are implicit. Here is what would be an example of an assumption for this particular Critical Reasoning problem: Owning something or part of something obliges you work harder to make it succeed. Note that this line is not in the text: it cannot be in the text if it is an assumption of the author. But it does give the argument as a whole some sense, and also supports the conclusion. Supporting Information- Like a premise, this is stated and explicit information embedded in the text, but unlike a premise, it does not support the conclusion. At best it supports a premise or provides further detail or information regarding a premise. From the text: According to a report done by an outside consultant, productivity dropped by 35% by the end of that period. This sentence supports the first sentence, the premise that notes that productivity has dropped. Supporting Information does not support the Conclusion or Main Idea, rather, it supports information that is already in the text. The following strategies should help you with all the Critical Reasoning questions. 1. KISS - Remember the old saying, Keep It Simple Stupid i.e. KISS? It also applies to Critical Reasoning. The key to Critical Reasoning is to focus on what the question is asking you to do, finding an answer choice that best answers the question. THAT'S ALL YOU SHOULD DO. Some books tell you to think of the 'scope' or 'parameters' of the argument. That's valid too – it is basically saying the same thing. Just answer the question, do not read too much into it or let your own knowledge of a subject lead you to pick the wrong answer. KISS. 2. Patterns - Look for particular types of questions, and then use the strategies appropriate for that type of question to choose the right answer. We will be looking at different types of Critical Reasoning Questions in the next section. Personal 3. Identify the Argument - Sounds obvious? Nonetheless, many forget or do not know the importance of carrying out this absolutely essential task. In order to do this, imagine what would satisfy the question. After you have imagined what could satisfy the question, look for it down below in the five answer choices. Is it right there, or very similar to it, in answer choice B, for example? If so, then B probably is the answer. Read the other answer choices quickly, but this is probably the right answer. This strategy saves you some valuable time. Of course, this strategy does not apply to Supply the Conclusion questions, but it does especially matter for Weaken, Strengthen, Continue the Idea and <EM.ASSUMPTIONquestions. 4. Silly Answer Choices - There are ridiculous or nonsensical answer choices in many questions. If an answer choice seems against common sense, or makes no sense if the main idea is true, then you can probably eliminate it. 5. Eliminate! - Rather than making a choice immediately, it is almost always better to eliminate down to one or two answers. Eliminate the ones you know do not make sense. So if you are left with two answer choices, and cannot decide between them, guess. At least you have eliminated it down to 50-50 odds. That's better than Las Vegas. There are four types of questions that account for the majority of the questions in Critical Reasoning. You MUST know how to deal with these types of questions. 1. Weaken the Argument 2. Strengthen the Argument 3. Supply the Conclusion 4. Supply the Assumption There are other types of questions but they are rare by comparison with these 4. We will encounter the other types of Critical Reasoning question in a later tutorial. We will begin with Weaken the Argument. This is probably the easiest and certainly the most common of Critical Reasoning question types, the Weaken the Argument question. Here's how this type of question might look: Some rental car agencies in the U.S. are now looking into installing satellite-guided navigation systems in their automobiles. The driver inputs the address on a keyboard, and the on-board computer calls out directions in American English, such as "You are now approaching Main Street". Rental car agencies hope to target foreign tourists and travelers unfamiliar with the United States. Which of the following, if true, provides the greatest reason to suggest that the plan will not work? A These new computer navigation systems are expensive to install in many automobiles. B Some foreigners visiting the United States may not understand English. C Some people argue that the computer's voice sounds extremely cold and impersonal. D Many American citizens will also want to take advantage of the satellite-guided navigation systems. E In the average U.S. city, paper maps and city guides are available in almost every hotel and gas station. Try to answer this Weaken the Argument question yourself before going on to see the explanation. Personal And here's how to answer the question: 1. Identify the argument. Remember, that's usually in the first or last line. 2. Anticipate what will be the answer, if possible. Imagine what would satisfy the question- what would weaken the argument. Then look for it in the answer choices. 3. Eliminate answer choices that do not weaken the argument. 4. If there are two or three answer choices left after the process of elimination, then choose! Let's work through that example: Some rental car agencies in the U.S. are now looking into installing satellite-guided navigation systems in their automobiles. The driver inputs the address on a keyboard, and the on-board computer calls out directions in American English, such as "You are now approaching Main Street". Rental car agencies hope to target foreign tourists and travelers unfamiliar with the United States. Which of the following, if true, provides the greatest reason to suggest that the plan will not work? A These new computer navigation systems are expensive to install in many automobiles. B Some foreigners visiting the United States may not understand English. C Some people argue that the computer's voice sounds extremely cold and impersonal. D Many American citizens will also want to take advantage of the satellite-guided navigation systems. E In the average U.S. city, paper maps and city guides are available in almost every hotel and gas station. Explanation: We want to weaken or attack the plan, so our first step is to identify it. The plan, aimed at foreigners in the U.S., is to install computer systems in rental cars that call out directions in American English. Remember, nothing in the GMAT is there by accident. Why foreigners? Why American English? Ah-ha, that's the key. We could probably anticipate that these travelers and tourists will not understand the directions! Therefore, the plan will not work. Thus B looks tempting, but let's also try to get to the correct answer through the process of elimination. A says the system is expensive to implement in many cars. On the surface this seems to weaken the idea, but perhaps the investment in installing the system is worth it. Even though expensive, A does not tell us the plan will not work. In C the computerized voice is cold and impersonal, and while that might make people uncomfortable, it does not mean that the system will not do what it is supposed to do. In D, the fact that other U.S. citizens might also want the system does not weaken the idea for the rental car companies. And in E, the suggestion that there are already non-computerized guides readily available does not weaken the idea of having the computerized system – in fact, they could possibly complement each other. B is the best answer because it basically states what we anticipated - that the plan will not work because people will not understand the computer's English. The good news is that Strengthen the Argument questions are exactly the same as Weaken, except this time we want to support the main idea or argument. Example The city council of Nowheresville has proposed establishing tollbooths on all of the major routes into the city. The council's reasoning is that this fee will force many commuters to switch from private automobiles to the public transportation system. Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the city council's plan will be successful? A Most of the citizens of Nowheresville support the new plan. Personal B Several other cities have attempted to implement the scheme in the past, with mixed results. C Currently the average private commuter car spends one hour and forty-five minute in the commute into the city. D A new study suggests that many commuters with cars would switch to public transportation if driving in the city became any more expensive. E The price of gasoline is projected to plummet in the next few months. Try to answer this Strengthen the Argument question before checking the explanation. Here's what to do: 1. Identify the argument. Remember, it's usually in the first or last line. 2. Anticipate what will be the answer, if possible. Imagine what would satisfy the question- what would strengthen the argument. Then look for it in the answer choices. 3. Eliminate answer choices that do not strengthen the argument. 4. If there are two or three answer choices left after the process of elimination, then: choose! So let's find the best answer The city council of Nowheresville has proposed establishing tollbooths on all of the major routes into the city. The council's reasoning is that this fee will force many commuters to switch from private automobiles to the public transportation system. Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the city council's plan will be successful? A Most of the citizens of Nowheresville support the new plan. B Several other cities have attempted to implement the scheme in the past, with mixed results. C Currently the average private commuter car spends one hour and forty-five minute in the commute into the city. D A new study suggests that many commuters with cars would switch to public transportation if driving in the city became any more expensive. E The price of gasoline is projected to plummet in the next few months. Explanation We want to first identify the argument, which is that that the tollbooth plan will make people take public transportation. We can anticipate that the correct answer will strengthen or support the plan. D best strengthens the idea that people will switch from private transportation if it becomes any more expensive, so it is a likely candidate for the right answer. But let's eliminate answer choices. It could be argued that B and E actually weaken the likelihood of the plan working. If, as in B, other cities have attempted to do this and have had mixed results, then that is not a good reason to implement it in Nowheresville. E says that the price of gasoline will fall in the next few months, which means that the drop in price perhaps will be offset by the increase in the tolls, and therefore there will be no incentive to switch to public transportation. A suggests that most people support the plan, but that does strengthen the plan. C says that the average commuter spends an hour and forty-five minutes in his car, but that information does not support the idea. D is the correct answer. In this type of question, you have to supply a conclusion from the premises given. For example Some studies indicate that alcohol advertisements on television cause people to increase their alcohol consumption. In Arcadia, however, where there has been a ban on alcohol advertising for the last ten years, alcohol consumption per capita is at least as high as in countries that do Personal not have such a ban in place. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? A People tend to consume more alcohol if they are exposed to alcohol advertisements than if they are not exposed to those advertisements. B Advertising has no effect on whether people consume more or less alcohol. C Advertising cannot be the only factor that determines an individual's consumption of alcohol. D Most people continued to consume alcohol after the ban was implemented. E If advertising for alcohol were allowed in Arcadia, it would be extremely effective. Try to do the question before you go to the explanation. 1. Identify the premises of the argument. 2. Assume all the premises are true. Try to combine or link those premises. Is there an obvious conclusion that could be made from these premises? 3. Eliminate answer choices that don't deal with or are supported by ALL of the premises, or that don't make sense from the information given. 4. If there are two or three answer choices left after the process of elimination, then: choose! Let us practice Some studies indicate that alcohol advertisements on television cause people to increase their alcohol consumption. In Arcadia, however, where there has been a ban on alcohol advertising for the last ten years, alcohol consumption per capita is at least as high as in countries that do not have such a ban in place. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? A People tend to consume more alcohol if they are exposed to alcohol advertisements than if they are not exposed to those advertisements. B Advertising has no effect on whether people consume more or less alcohol. C Advertising cannot be the only factor that determines an individual's consumption of alcohol. D Most people continued to consume alcohol after the ban was implemented. E If advertising for alcohol were allowed in Arcadia, it would be extremely effective. Explanation First, what are the premises? 1) alcohol ads increase alcohol consumption. 2) Arcadia has a ban on alcohol advertisements, and has the same level of alcohol consumption as countries that do not have a ban. Next, what can we conclude from these premises? We can conclude that advertisements cannot be the sole cause of alcohol consumption. Then, eliminate answer choices that don't deal with or are supported by ALL of the premises, or that don't make sense from the information given. A basically supports the first premise, that alcohol advertising increases alcohol consumption, but that does not explain or deal with the second premise. B might tempt you, since it says that advertising has no effect on whether one consumes more or less alcohol, but that statement goes against the first premise. D and E both go beyond the scope of the argument. C is the correct answer because it deals with both premises, and can be assumed from both premises. For most people, these questions are the real difficult ones! Very tough, and unfortunately, the Assumption problem is the type of question most open to interpretation. But we do what we can, Let us approach the question. Personal Example New medical studies indicate that if the average employee improves his physical health, then his productivity also increases markedly. Company XYZ should therefore introduce mandatory exercise programs every morning in order to augment productivity. The author assumes which of the following to be true? A The mandatory exercise programs will be successful in improving the physical health of the employees at XYZ. B Employees who take exercise programs at work are no more productive than are employees who take exercise programs outside of work.. C Employees who exercise sleep better than employees who do not do so do. D Employees who exercise at work often complain of tiredness throughout the day. E Employees often resist mandatory exercise programs, viewing them as intrusions on their privacy and on their labor rights. See if you can find the author's assumption before continuing. 1. Identify the premises of the argument. 2. Identify the conclusion. Remember, that's usually in the first or last sentence of the text. 3. Identify the gap in the logic of the argument. What's missing or needed to make this argument convincing? 4. What's the new element or factor in the conclusion? The assumption will probably introduce it. 5. Go through each answer choice. Does it strengthen the conclusion? If not, then eliminate it. 6. Eliminate silly or nonsensical answer choices. 7. Choose! Don't waste time! So let's solve this one New medical studies indicate that if the average employee improves his physical health, then his productivity also increases markedly. Company XYZ should therefore introduce mandatory exercise programs every morning in order to augment productivity. The author assumes which of the following to be true? A The mandatory exercise programs will be successful in improving the physical health of the employees at XYZ. B Employees who take exercise programs at work are no more productive than are employees who take exercise programs outside of work.. C Employees who exercise sleep better than employees who do not do so do. D Employees who exercise at work often complain of tiredness throughout the day. E Employees often resist mandatory exercise programs, viewing them as intrusions on their privacy and on their labor rights. Explanation The correct answer choice must fill the gap in the logic, and also support the conclusion. First we must identify the premise(s), and then the conclusion. The first premise in the text says that 1) improved physicality leads to 2) (the second premise) increased productivity. The conclusion states that therefore 1) the exercise program will lead to 2) increased productivity. There is a gap in the logic here. To correct this gap in the argument, we must say that 1) exercise program leads to 2) improved physicality which leads to 3) increased productivity. What is the new element in the conclusion? The part about the exercise program. So we must establish the link between the exercise program and the improved physicality. Personal We can also make eliminations. B says that employees who take exercise programs at work are no more productive than those who take them at work, which actually weakens the main idea and therefore is not a good assumption. Whether employees who exercise or not get more sleep has little bearing on whether the plan will work, so C is not a good answer. D states that employees who exercise at work often complain of tiredness throughout the day, which does not support the conclusion and thus should be eliminated. E says that employees often resist such programs, which also does not support the argument and can be discarded. A, the answer, fills the gap in the logic nicely by stating that the mandatory exercise programs will be successful in improving the physical health of the employees at XYZ. It also supports and strengthens the conclusion, which is another requirement of the assumption. Additionally, it introduces the new element in the conclusion, the mandatory exercise program. Therefore, for all these reasons, A is the best answer. This is a summary of all the strategies that you have learned for tackling Critical Reasoning questions. You might find it useful to print this summary and use it for reference. General Strategies These are the strategies that apply to all Critical Reasoning questions. 1. KISS. Keep things clear and simple. 2. Look for particular types of questions (for example Weaken the Argument), and then use the strategies appropriate for that type of question to choose the right answer. 3. Identify the Argument. 4. Eliminate silly or nonsensical answers. 5. Eliminate answer choices that do not answer the question. For specific question types Strategies for each different type of question. Weaken the Argument questions 1. Identify the argument. Remember, that's usually in the first or last line. 2. Anticipate what will be the answer, if possible. Imagine what would satisfy the question- what would strengthen the argument. Then look for it in the answer choices. 3. Eliminate answer choices that do not weaken the argument. 4. If there are two or three answer choices left after the process of elimination, then choose! Strengthen the Argument questions 1. Identify the argument. Remember, that's usually in the first or last line. 2. Anticipate what will be the answer, if possible. Imagine what would satisfy the question- what would strengthen the argument. Then look for it in the answer choices. 3. Eliminate answer choices that do not strengthen the argument. 4. If there are two or three answer choices left after the process of elimination, then choose! Supply the Conclusion 1. Identify the premises of the argument. 2. Assume all the premises are true. Try to combine or link those premises. Is there an obvious conclusion that could be made from these premises? 3. Eliminate answer choices that don't deal with or are supported by ALL of the premises, or that don't make sense from the information given. 4. If there are two or three answer choices left after the process of elimination, then: choose! Personal Supply the Assumption questions 1. Identify the premises of the argument. 2. Identify the conclusion. Remember, that's usually in the first or last sentence of the text. 3. Identify the gap in the logic of the argument. What's missing or needed to make this argument convincing? 4. What's the new element or factor in the conclusion? The assumption will probably introduce it. 5. Go through each answer choice. Does it strengthen the conclusion? If not, then eliminate it. Eliminate silly or nonsensical answer choices. 6. Choose! Don't waste time! This chapter is divided into two parts: I. Six Principles for Critical Reasoning Questions II. The Seven Main Types of Critical Reasoning Questions I. Six Principles for Critical Reasoning Questions Critical Reasoning questions typically involve an argument. To address Critical Reasoning questions, you must learn how to analyze logical arguments. A. Learn how to identify arguments B. Types of arguments C. Putting it into your own words D. Evaluate an argument E. Evaluate an argument's strength and validity F. Get an idea of the right answer G. Don't fall for traps from test writers II. Typical Critical Reasoning Question Types A. Must Be True Questions B. Assumption Questions C. Strengthen and Weaken Questions D. Main Point Questions E. Paradox Questions A. Learn how to identify arguments Is the text an argument? An argument here doesn't mean a dispute or controversy. It means an attempt to provide a reason for believing something by citing something else. It is an attempt to show that something is true, or probably true, by appealing to something else, some reason or evidence, which indicates that it is true. The following text includes an argument: New evidence shows that the AIDS virus may not be as lethal as it has been thought to be and that some people may be able to develop a defense against it. The evidence involves an appreciable number of people who have been HIV positive for many years (some of them for twelve years or more). Lab tests show that the virus is present in their blood. But they have not developed any symptoms of AIDS. They continue to be in good health and show no signs of developing the disease. Some researchers estimate that as many as 5% of those infected by the virus may be in this category and that they will never develop the disease. Personal In this text a claim is made about how lethal the AIDS virus is. It may not be 100% lethal. Some people may be able to resist it, perhaps because of a natural immunity. And some evidence is cited to show that this claim is true. That evidence is the (alleged) fact that some people have had the AIDS virus in their system for many years and show no signs at all of developing the disease. It is plausible to think that the person who wrote that text intended to cite that fact as a reason for believing the claim about the lethality of the AIDS virus. Premises and Conclusions In an argument some claims are put forward in support of others. The claim that is being supported is the conclusion. The claims which are alleged to support the conclusion are the premises. There may be more than one conclusion in an argument, and often, there is more than one premise. In the argument above about AIDS, there is a closely related set of conclusions. New evidence shows that the AIDS virus may not be as lethal as it has been thought to be and that some people may be able to develop a defense against it. In support of these conclusions, the author cites the (alleged) fact that some people have been infected with the virus for a long time without showing any signs of the disease itself. This latter assertion is the premise in this argument. How do you identify premises and conclusions? Reliable clues are provided by certain key words, which are often used to identify premises and conclusions. The following words and phrases are quite often used to introduce conclusions: So... This shows that... Therefore... We can infer that... Hence... Consequently... It follows that... This indicates that... For that reason, we may say... These are phrases that introduce the premises of an argument: The reason is that... Because... Since... Evidence... On the basis of... It follows from... In view of... We may infer from... When you are able to identify premises and conclusions, you may easily analyze how strongly the premises back up the conclusion. In many of the Critical Reasoning questions, there will be a gap between the premises and the conclusion--the assumptions. Your objective is to find the gaps (the assumptions) and use that knowledge to find the solution. For example, in the AIDS argument above, one of the unstated assumptions is that the evidence about AIDS is accurate. Premises + Assumptions = Conclusion w B. Types of arguments B. Types of Arguments (If you have limited time to prepare, skip to C.) Personal Now that you can identify premises and conclusions, how are they structured into arguments? Deductive and Inductive Arguments Deductive arguments are arguments that show a tight connection between the premises and the conclusions. There is no possible way the conclusion could fail to be true if the premises are true. (That is not to say, of course, that the premises are true.) Arguments in mathematics and in pure logic are often of this sort: "If no one watered my plants during my vacation, they will all die. No one watered my plants during my vacation. Therefore, my plants have all died." The premises of that argument might possibly be false. But, if they are both true, then there is no way the conclusion can be false. There are other arguments with a looser connection. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likely to be true also; it would be surprising if the conclusion were false; we have good reason to think that the conclusion is true, and so on. These are the inductive arguments. The AIDS argument above is inductive. The conclusion of the argument is that it seems probable that in some way the disease has been successfully stalled. In both sorts of arguments, the premises support the conclusion if those premises are true. But if they are false, they provide no such support. Discovering that a premise is false, then, undercuts the force of both deductive and inductive arguments. Because inductive arguments are not conclusive, they may be weakened (perhaps rejected entirely) even if we continue to recognize that their premises are perfectly true. If, for example, researchers were to identify a virus very similar to the AIDS virus, and if they discovered that the incubation period for this virus in chimpanzees often exceeded fifteen years, that discovery would seriously weaken the argument in the example. But it would not show that any of the premises of the original argument were false. It would not show that some people have not survived, and in good health, for twelve years after having been infected. It weakens the argument by introducing another possibility, that the AIDS virus may have a longer incubation period than previously thought plausible. Inductive arguments can also be strengthened by the introduction of new data. If it were discovered that there is a similar virus which infects chimpanzees, and for which many chimpanzees develop a resistance which enables them to live out a normal life span in good health, that would further bolster the conclusion that perhaps some humans can make a similar defense against AIDS. w C. Putting it into your own words C. Putting it into your own words Now that you know how to break down arguments into premises and conclusions, you are able to translate a passage into your own words. Each question is divided into two parts: the stimulus (the first part of the question that usually consists of an argument) and the stem, which asks a questions such as, "which of the following is an assumption of the paragraph above?" When you finish reading the stimulus, try to summarize in your mind what the argument in the stimulus is about (premises, conclusions, and assumptions). Most of the stimulus parts of the questions have a flaw that you can readily identify, such as a flawed assumption. When you put the argument in your own words, you can usually identify what the stem will ask before you even get to it. This process helps you identify the meaning of the stimulus. Usually the stimulus describes something very simple in a complicated manner, and putting it in your own words helps you to get a handle on what the passage means. Personal Apartment building owners argue that rent control should be abolished. Although they acknowledge that they would increase rents in the short term, owners argue that in the long term the rent increases would lead to greater profitability. Higher profits would lead to increased apartment construction. Increased apartment construction would then lead to a greater supply of residences and lower prices as the potential apartment residents have a better selection. Thus, abolishing rent control would ultimately reduce prices. Try to express that complicated argument in your own words? Simple. Abolishing rent control will increase the supply of housing (premise); greater supply leads to lower prices (premise); and thus abolishing rent control leads to lower rents (conclusion). It is a supply/demand argument. Once you put it into your own terms, the question becomes much easier to understand. w D. Evaluate an argument D. Evaluate an argument Now that you can break a stimulus into premises and conclusions and put the argument into your own words, how do you find errors in the arguments? The Usual Suspects: Common Logical Fallacies We've identified several logical errors that commonly appear in the Critical Reasoning questions. 1. Circular Reasoning Here, an unsubstantiated assertion is used to justify another unsubstantiated assertion, which is, or at least could be, used to justify the first statement. For instance, Joe and Fred show up at an exclusive club. When asked if they are members, Joe says "I'll vouch for Fred." When Joe is asked for evidence that he's a member, Fred says, "I'll vouch for him." 2. The Biased Sample Fallacy The Fallacy of the Biased Sample is committed whenever the data for a statistical inference is drawn from a sample that is not representative of the population under consideration. The data drawn and used to make a generalization is drawn from a group that does not represent the whole. Here is an argument that commits the fallacy of the biased sample: ln a recent survey conducted by Wall Street Weekly of its readers, 80% of the respondents indicated their strong disapproval of increased capital gains taxes. This survey clearly shows that increased capital gains taxes will meet with strong opposition from the electorate. The data for the inference in this argument is drawn from a sample that is not representative of the entire electorate. Since the survey was conducted of people who invest, not all members of the electorate have an equal chance of being included in the sample. Moreover, persons who read about investing are more likely to have an opinion on the topic of taxes on investment different from the population at large. 3. The Insufficient Sample Fallacy The Fallacy of the Insufficient Sample is committed whenever an inadequate sample is used to justify the conclusion drawn. Personal Here's an argument that commits the fallacy of the insufficient sample: I have worked with three people from New York City and found them to be obnoxious, pushy and rude. It is obvious that people from New York City have a bad attitude. The data for the inference in this argument is insufficient to support the conclusion. Three observations of people are not sufficient to support a conclusion about 10 million. 4. Ad hominen One of the most often employed fallacies, ad hominen means "to the man" and indicates an attack that is made upon a person rather than upon the statements that person has made. An example is "Don't listen to my opponent; he's a homosexual." 5. The Fallacy of Faulty Analogy Reasoning by analogy functions by comparing two similar things. Because they are alike in various ways, the fallacy is that it is likely they will share another trait as well. Faulty Analogy arguments draw similarities between the things compared that are not relevant to the characteristic being inferred in the conclusion. Here's an example of a Faulty Analogy fallacy: Ted and Jim excel at both football and basketball. Since Ted is also a track star, it is likely that Jim also excels at track. In this example, numerous similarities between Ted and Jim are taken as the basis for the inference that they share additional traits. 6. Straw Man Here the speaker attributes an argument to an opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. For instance, a political candidate might charge that his opponent "wants to let all prisoners go free," when in fact his opponent simply favors a highly limited furlough system. The person is portrayed as someone that he is not. 7. The "After This, Therefore, Because of This" Fallacy (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) This is a "false cause" fallacy in which something is associated with something else because of mere proximity of time. One often encounters people assuming that because one thing happened after another, the first caused it, as with "I touched a toad; I have a wart. The toad caused the wart." The error in arguments that commit this fallacy is that their conclusions are causal claims that are not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence. Here are two examples of the After This, Therefore Because of This Fallacy: Ten minutes after walking into the auditorium, I began to feel sick to my stomach. There must have been something in the air in that building that caused my nausea. The stock market declined shortly after the election of the president,thus indicating the lack of confidence the business community has in the new administration. In the first example, a causal connection is posited between two events simply on the basis of one occurring before the other. Without further evidence to support it, the causal claim based on the correlation is premature. The second example is typical of modern news reporting. The only evidence offered in this argument to support the claim that the decline in the stock market was caused by the election of the president is the fact that election preceded the