GMAT Exam: A Simple Guide To Solving Critical Reasoning Questions

The Critical Reasoning questions appear in the Verbal section of the GMAT. Along with the Reading Comprehension questions, Critical Reasoning questions will be included with Sentence Correction questions.

Generally, there are about 40 questions in the Verbal section, which means you’ll be asked to complete 12 or so Critical Reasoning questions.

As before, you’ll be shown the passage and the question on a split screen, and once you confirm your answer, the question and passage will disappear. Remember, you’ll get 75 minutes for the entire Verbal section.

Warning: Critical Reasoning questions are unusual. You won’t have seen anything similar to them on the SAT or GRE. They’re designed to test your skills in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of arguments.

The good news is that you actually do this all the time, whether you’re comparison shopping for a new washer and dryer or deciding whether someone’s story could be the truth! You have to evaluate the arguments being made to decide what’s the best next thing to do. The Critical Reasoning section asks you to do the same thing.

Instructions
The instructions for this section read like this:
Each of the Critical Reasoning questions is based on a short argument, a set of statements, or a plan of action. For each question, select the best answer of the choices given.

Here’s what the instructions don’t tell you: you’ll be presented with a brief passage (much shorter than the Reading Comprehension passages) that will present some kind of argument. Immediately after the passage will be a short question that asks you to examine some aspect of the reasoning in the passage. There will be five answer choices, and only one of those will be correct.

Much like the Reading Comprehension questions, the passages in this section will cover many different topics. However, in the Reading Comprehension section you were able to answer between three and five questions based on one passage before moving on.

Here, each question will refer to a different passage, which can be disorienting. The passages are shorter, about 100 words, but as you can tell, that doesn’t make for less work.

Also, you’ll be asked to work through different kinds of convoluted logic, switching back and forth between reasoning techniques as you move through this section.

As always, the GMAT test-makers will try to trip you up or mislead you.

It bears repeating as a reminder: you have to work through the questions in order on the GMAT. So, even if you’d like to go through and answer all of the Reading Comprehension questions first, you can’t.

You’ll have to answer Critical Reasoning questions as they appear.


Types of Critical Reasoning Questions

What Do We Mean by “Argument”?
Critical Reasoning passages are concerned with arguments, but that turn of phrase can seem confusing. We don’t mean the type of arguments one has about who left the milk out. In other words, this kind of argument is not a disagreement but rather the way a premise is presented to support a conclusion. Most of the questions in the Critical Reasoning section will detail a premise or two and present a conclusion that is supposedly drawn from the premise(s). However, the conclusion is not only based on the premise, but also on unstated assumptions that are being made to help support it. These unstated assumptions—the secret traps of logic—are what most Critical Reasoning questions are concerned with.

For example, let’s look at an argument:
Floods often destroy athletic fields that are not built at least 100 feet above the flood plain. The Richland Rams’ football field was built 120 feet above the flood plain, so it will survive the next flood.

In this argument, there are two premises:
- That floods often destroy athletic fields that are not built at least 100 feet above the flood plain.
- That the Richland Rams’ football field was built 120 feet above the flood plain.

These premises lead to one conclusion:
Therefore, the Rams’ football field will survive the next flood.

In this case, the premises presented are not enough to prove the conclusion correct. Stating that fields built below the flood plain are often destroyed by flooding does not prove that a field built above the flood plain will always survive flooding. Therefore, the argument includes (but does not state) several assumptions, including:
- Fields that are built above the flood plain will survive any flood.
- The next flood will not rise above the flood plain.
- The next flood will not cause any other related disasters (including mudslides or downed trees) that will affect the field’s survival.

There are other assumptions at work, but these serve to show how the argument is built upon more than the premises stated. While this argument is simpler than most that you’ll find in the GMAT’s Critical Reasoning section, it aptly demonstrates how you can look for flaws in the logic presented, and thus the argument’s stability. You’ll be asked to either take out one of the assumptions to weaken the argument or to prop up the argument with an additional assumption or premise.

Assumption Questions
Most of the Critical Reasoning questions you’ll face are assumption questions, which ask you to identify the assumption of the argument presented. Questions of this type will read something like these examples:
- Which of the following is an assumption that enables the conclusion presented to be properly drawn?
- Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?
- The conclusion of the argument as stated above cannot be true unless which of the following is true?
- Any of the following, if introduced into the argument above as an additional premise, makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT

As you can see, the wording is not concise, but clear: These questions ask you to look at the premises and the conclusion of the argument and see what’s not being said. You’ll need to determine the other conditions that must be necessary for the argument to work. In the example above, you need to figure out the assumption that gets you from the premise that the Rams’ field was built 120 feet above the flood plain to the conclusion that the Rams’ field will survive the next flood. The assumption there—and therefore your answer—will be something along the lines of:
Fields that are built 120 feet or higher off the flood plain will survive the next flood.

Weaken the Argument Questions
Another very common type of Critical Reasoning question is weaken-the-argument questions, which ask you to do exactly what the name implies: weaken the presented argument.

They often have wording similar to the following examples:
- Which of the following, if true, most clearly points to a flaw in the manufacturer’s plan?
- Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
- Which of the following, if true, most severely undermines the argument presented above?

To answer this type of question, you’ll have to think in a way that’s very similar to how you needed to work through an assumption question. However, here, you’ll need to take it a step further, determining which assumptions have to be true for the argument to work, and then find the answer that challenges one of those assumptions.

With our example argument, a correct answer might look something like one of the following:
- When the last major flood occurred in the area, several athletic fields that were built more than 100 feet above the flood plain were destroyed by flooding.
- Scientists predict that the next major flood to hit the area will be at least five times as severe as the worst prior flood.

Clearly, both of the answers take away the sturdiness of the argument by attacking one of the unspoken assumptions. The first answer choice eliminates the assumption that floods never rise higher than 100 feet, while the second takes away the assumption that floods are likely to remain at the same level of severity.
Another way to think of this type of question is to recognize that you need to look for flaws in the argument. That’s likely to be something you do every day, whether you’re evaluating someone’s excuse or figuring out why someone’s logic doesn’t convince you. But do be careful not to choose the answer choice that actually strengthens the argument. There will probably be one, and it’s easy to get confused when you’re trying to move quickly through the questions.

Strengthen the Argument
As you might guess, another form of Critical Reasoning questions is to ask you to strengthen the argument presented. This is not nearly as popular as weaken-the-argument questions, but you’ll see at least a few of them on your GMAT. They often have wording like the following examples:
- Which of the following, if true, offers the strongest support for the manager’s conclusion that the windows were not at fault?
- Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence in favor of the treasurer’s hypothesis?
- Which of the following, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?

If you look at our example, you’ll see that in a strengthen-the-argument question, you’d need to find a statement that confirms one of the assumptions on which the argument is based. If you knew it was true, the argument would be stronger.

For example, any of the following would help:
- In the last flood, no fields that were at least 100 feet above the flood plain were damaged, although fields below that level were ruined.
- Scientists predict that the next flood in the region will be smaller in scale than any prior floods.

Each of the above statements addresses flaws in the argument. It’s not that the statement proves the argument, by the way. Rather, the correct statement will eliminate a potential flaw in logic in the argument.
You’re never asked to prove or disprove an argument in the Critical Reasoning section. All you do is evaluate its merits.
You’ll notice that those flaws are exactly the same ones a weaken-the-argument question would try to exploit!

That’s the thing about the arguments on the GMAT’s Critical Reasoning section: they’re designed to be flexible, able to be weakened or strengthened by additional statements. As with weaken-the-argument questions, the strengthen-the-argument questions will often include an answer choice that does exactly the opposite (that is, weaken when you want to strengthen), so be sure to read and choose carefully, as always.

Inference Questions
You might have hoped to leave inferring behind with Critical Reading, but, alas, it’s still a major part of the GMAT. There will be at least one inference question in most Critical Reasoning sections. These questions ask you to make a logical inference based on the information presented in the passage. Basically, this type of question asks: if the statements in the passage are true, what else has to be true?

You might be thinking that assumption questions, which we’ve already covered, asked you to infer. Yep, that’s correct! Assumption questions are a specific kind of inference question, asking if the argument is valid, you can infer that which of the following assumptions must be true in order to logically connect the premise and the conclusion?

While the same type of logic is at work in other inference questions (If______is true, what else must be true?), what is being inferred is a bit different. You might not be asked to infer something that is a vital component of the argument, but rather a logical extension of it. In a way, these questions are about the sidecars of the argument; even if you eliminate one of them, the argument will still ride.

Unlike the prior types of questions, which mostly dealt with the assumptions of an argument, inference questions can consider all aspects of the argument: the premises, the assumptions, the conclusion, or even how it applies to a related solution.

Examples of this type of question are:
- If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?
- The statements above, if true, best support which of the following assertions?
- Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the statements above?
- If the statement above is true, then what might be the expected outcome if the plane left an hour earlier than expected?

Remember our concept of “hopping” instead of “leaping” in logic in the Reading Comprehension guide? The idea was that the shortest jump in logic was the better answer (and always the correct answer, according to the GMAT) than the longer leap in logic. The same principle applies here.
Don’t look for bold statements, but for very conservative steps forward in thinking. The correct answer will be the only one that has to be true if the statements in the passage are true.

Let’s use our ongoing example to explore this idea. Here are two inferences you could draw from the passage:
- Athletic fields that are built lower than 100 feet above the flood plain are not necessarily in danger of flooding.
- Height above sea level may play a role in protecting athletic fields from damage due to flooding.

Notice, again, the moderate tone of these statements. These are hops, not leaps. Notice the language in use here: “not necessarily” and “may play a role.” These make for weaker claims, but those are the kind the GMAT favors.

Explain/Resolve the Discrepancy
As we mentioned, the vast majority of questions that you’ll see in the Critical Reasoning section are from the types we’ve covered so far. But every once in a while, you’ll encounter an outlier, so we’ll quickly review the other possibilities.

Sometimes the arguments in the passages don’t wrap up with a clear conclusion. The premises presented might be incomplete, confusing, or even contradictory. The question will ask you to provide a logical explanation that resolves the confusion. Question stems from explain/resolve the discrepancy will look something like this:
- Which of the following, if true, would best explain the sudden decrease in energy consumption described above?
- Which of the following, if true, would help to explain the discrepancy above?
- Which of the following, if true, best accounts for the fact that Britain is not widely believed to be a leader in this field?

Questions of this type are quite closely linked to assumption questions, since the reasoning you’ll need to use is very similar. Basically, you’re being given a premise (or premises) and a conclusion that doesn’t quite match up, and you’ll need to figure out the assumption that connects the argument logically.

Here’s an example:
Over the past five years, Magda won several medals in running competitions. She was recently involved in a minor biking accident, however, and as a result of her injuries, she must wear a neck brace. Despite this fact, she is favored to win the big race in two months.

The question stem is:
Which of the following, if true, would help explain the apparent paradox described above?
Clearly, something’s missing in this argument—the conclusion (“she is favored to win”) is not supported by the premises (the biking accident, the neck brace), which seem to support the opposite conclusion.

Now let’s consider what assumptions might make the above a logical argument; that is, what might explain the discrepancy?
- Magda wears a light neck brace at night but has full movement of her head during the day.
- The big race next month is an auto race.
- The neck brace will be removed next week, and Magda will have fully recovered before the big race occurs in two months.

Each of these statements, if true, could explain why the argument presented above must be true. They are not huge leaps in logic, but gentle hops. It’s helpful to probe the passage for the unstated assumptions before you start looking at the answer choices. This will help you find the holes in the argument.

Ask the Right Question
Another infrequent type of Critical Reasoning question is the ask-the-right-question problem. In this type of question, you are asked to choose the answer choice that best explains what else you need to know in order to analyze or explain the situation presented in the problem. As you’ll see, this question is like taking another step back from the argument, so you can consider it more carefully.

Questions of this type often read like these examples:
- Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?
- Which of the following investigations is most likely to yield significant information that would help to evaluate the meteorologist’s hypothesis?

This type of question is really just a variation on the questions that ask you to strengthen or weaken the argument. You’ll want to look closely at one of the premises or assumptions upon which the argument you’ve been given is built. Unlike the more common types of questions, you’re not asked to strengthen or weaken the argument, but to provide a question for which the answer will prove to strengthen or weaken the argument.

That’s why we suggest thinking of it as taking a step back and asking yourself, “What would help me improve (or attack) this argument?”
If we return to the most recent example, of Magda and the big race, and take a step back, we can hypothesize that knowing what kind of race the big race is would help us be able to strengthen or weaken the argument. So we’d look for an answer that’s along the lines of “What type of race is the big race?” Notice how the answer is in the form of a question.

All of this makes for a fairly confusing question, indeed. Be glad that there aren’t going to be too many of them on the GMAT.

You’ll be mostly asked these kinds of questions more than any others: Strengthening or weakening the argument, and the assumptions made within the argument.

Parallel Reasoning
This type of question is not as difficult to think through but still requires careful thought. It’s the “compare and contrast” question of the Critical Reasoning section. It asks you to understand the underlying logic of an argument you’ve been given, and then choose the argument that is most similar in some way.

Here are examples of how parallel reasoning questions often read:
- Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?
- Which of the following supports its conclusion in the same way as the argument above?
- The logical flaw in the reasoning above is most similar to that in which of the following statements?

The only way to answer these questions without wasting a lot of time is to break the passage you’ve been given down into the parts that have been used to construct the argument. You’ll have to block out all of the surrounding information and instead understand the logic.

Let’s look at a slightly different example of Magda and the big race again, one that eliminates the flaw in logic.
Over the past five years, Magda won several medals in running competitions. She was recently involved in a minor biking accident, however, and as a result of her injuries, she must wear a neck brace. Therefore, when she competes in the big race next month, she’s unlikely to win.

The question is: Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure? So you’ll need to break down the logic:
1. Magda has won several medals in running competitions.
2. Magda was recently involved in a biking accident and must wear a neck brace.
3. Because of her injury and the treatment for it, she probably will not win the big race.

This argument is essentially, because X (2) is true, Y (3) is unlikely to happen. (We strongly suggest trying to eliminate the specifics of the argument so that they don’t distract you.)

Having broken the argument down into whatever shorthand works best for you, you’re now ready to choose the argument in the answer choice that looks closest to this one:

A. The best runners are unlikely to be the best swimmers. B. The journalist most likely will not finish her article on time because her computer isn’t working. C. Susan’s lack of lower body strength will prevent her from becoming a strong runner. D. Adelaide’s decision to try body surfing led to her breaking her arm. E. Millions of people entered the online contest, reducing the chances for any one of them to win.

The test-makers have a series of tricks they use on this type of question to trip you up.

Notice that many of these answer choices deal with athletic endeavors, in the hope that since the argument was about running, you’ll assume the answer must be, too. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

When you see answer choices that seem very similar in subject matter to the original premise, it’s likely that they are incorrect.

They do not reflect parallel reasoning, because the same logic is not displayed.

If you cannot immediately identify the correct answer, you can help yourself by noting what the logic is in the argument. Eliminate the specifics of the passage and the answer choices. If you do that, it’s clear that the choices are: A. X is unlikely to be Y. B. X is unlikely to happen because of Y. C. X will never happen because of Y. D. X happened. E. Because X is true, Y is unlikely to happen to Z.

It’s clear that B is the best choice, since it is the most similar (or parallel) argument to the passage.
If you’re stumped, remember that it’s OK to think about the logical structure in another way, especially if the X, Y, and Z just make things more confusing for you. Just be sure to contemplate the logic that’s in use, because that is the key to answering this type of question correctly.

You can always try using the X, Y, and Z shorthand in your practice.

Find the Conclusion
Another uncommon question is the find-the-conclusion question. Much as assumption questions ask you to identify an assumption of the argument, this type, as the name implies, will ask you to draw a logical conclusion from the passage. Find-the-conclusion questions often are worded like these:
- Which of the following conclusions can properly be drawn from the information in the passage?
- The argument, as presented above, is structured to lead to what conclusion?

When you consider the answer choices provided, make sure you look for one that has to be true if the premises in the passage are true. There will be at least one other choice that might be true, but that’s not the right choice. Here, yet again, you want to stick to hops in logic, not leaps. Keep your logic shipshape!

Fill in the Blank
It’s not hard to guess what to do with this type of question: you’ll need to choose the answer that finishes the sentence the best! The blank will almost always represent the conclusion of the argument, so this type of question is similar to the find-the-conclusion question.

It will read like this:
Which of the following best completes the passage above?

While it’s probably a bad idea to call any of the questions on the GMAT easy, this type of question is quite straightforward. You’ll have to read the passage and decide what’s missing—usually a conclusion (although occasionally a premise). After you read the passage, note for yourself what the answer should look like. When you have that in your head, then you can look at the answer choices. Try to find the one that is closest to what you decided. And remember, once again, to keep your logic tight, making hops instead of leaps!

Structure of an Argument
This type of question is a relatively new one on the GMAT. You may find that your test doesn’t include Critical Reasoning questions of this type, but just in case, do know that it exists.

It’s a bit like an inference question from Reading Comprehension, because you are asked to not just analyze the argument presented in the passage but also to think about the structure of the argument. Generally, one sentence in the passage will be in bold (a sure sign that the question will be a structure-of-an-argument question!), and you will be asked what role the bolded portion plays in the argument. In other words, you might be asked to identify it as a premise, evidence, or a conclusion. It will read something like this:

In the passage above, what role does the second paragraph play?

Dialogue Questions
This, the last type we’ll discuss, isn’t actually a distinct form of question. Rather, you should be aware that occasionally questions that are presented as a dialogue—usually between two colleagues, or an employee and her supervisor—appear on the GMAT.

Treat these as you would any other question, by reading them carefully and then deciding what information the question seeks to find.

A dialogue passage will look something like this:

 

Problem-Solving Strategies For Solving Critical Reasoning Questions

 

How to Approach Critical Reasoning Questions
Here’s a basic strategy for all Critical Reasoning questions. You should:
1. Read the question stem (the first part of the question), which often begins something like “Which of the following if true ….”
2. Read the passage carefully and critically. As you do so, try to analyze the basic components of the argument in light of the question, using the question stem to guide you.
3. Formulate a correct answer to the question in your head or using the scrap paper (before you look at the answer choices).
4. Review the answer choices. If the correct answer is obvious, select that one (but still read the other choices, just to be sure); otherwise, try to eliminate choices until one is left.

It’s helpful to read the question stem first because, unlike the Reading Comprehension passages where you’re likely to be asked to look for several different things, you really only need to look for one answer in the passage. Knowing what it is beforehand can help you focus your reading. Do read carefully; in these passages, missing a “not” or other key word could really affect your score.
Having the question stem in mind will also help you understand what you’re looking for. The stem can point you in the direction of finding a flaw in the argument, uncovering an unstated assumption, or restating the argument’s logic more generally.

Finally, sketching out your idea of the right answer is very helpful, because the answer choices are designed to confuse you. If you have an idea of what the correct choice should look like, you can pick out the correct answer much more quickly than if you have to consider, evaluate, and discard each answer choice.

Know How This Section Tries to Trick You
Just as the types of questions and the correct answers to those questions fall into patterns, so, too, do the wrong answers for a Critical Reasoning question fall into patterns. Sometimes, if you can identify an answer choice as falling into a pattern that other wrong answers follow, you’ll be able to eliminate it immediately. Here are a few of those patterns:

Wrong answers tend to:
- Come from Left Field. If the answer choice seems wacky, it’s wrong.
- Go too Far. This is the classic GMAT trick: there will be answers that seem to be true but require a leap in logic. The further you have to extend the logic, the more variables come into play. Instead, choose the answer that is closer to the premise in logic! A good tip is to avoid answer choices that have words such as always, all, none, or never in them. These terms are so broad that there’s almost always an exception. Instead, look for words that qualify or limit the logic, such as almost, usually, possibly, might, and could.
- Not Go Far Enough. Answer choices like these are true, but only for one of the premises or part of the argument presented. There will be another choice that is true for the entire passage, which is the better choice. Keep looking!
- Be Irrelevant. Answer choices like these present a fact about (or even taken from) the argument but don’t answer the question that is asked. Make sure you know what you’re looking for before you start reading the answer choices!
- Restate the Passage. You just finished a section (Reading Comprehension) in which we suggested you look for familiar phrasing in answering your questions. That tip doesn’t apply here, where you’re asked to think beyond the passage. An answer choice that simply repackages part of the passage is probably wrong.
- Appeal to Your Opinions or Values. Sometimes the GMAT provides an answer choice that isn’t logical, but that many people might feel is true or likely. As with all questions on the GMAT, though, you must stick to the presented argument and facts, no matter how the answer choices might want to sway you by appealing to your emotions.
- Be the Opposite. Remember you’ll be trying to read fast and move quickly through the test. The test-makers are counting on that, and thus are happy to provide you with an answer that is the exact opposite of what you’re looking for, in hopes that you choose it while hurrying.