Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
A paragraph or a case is usually followed by one or two questions in a Critical Reasoning question. The argument in the short paragraph is as follows:
The proof is the premise.
The primary point of the argument is stated in the conclusion.
An assumption is a set of unspoken or omitted premises without which the argument would fall apart.
The conclusion may not be provided in some circumstances, and the question may ask you to provide one. The premises are bits of evidence that the author utilises to reach the conclusion (as a foundation). The validity of the conclusion is determined by the strength of the premises and assumptions.
Questions
1)Many commercial offices are housed in structures with two to eight floors. A lift is present in a building with more than three stories. Which of the following must be true if the previous assertions are true?
A)There are no lifts on the second floor.
B)The 7th floor has lifts.
C)Only the third and fourth levels have lifts.
D)Elevators connect all floors.
Explanation and Answer
Option B is the correct answer.
Explanation: According to the question, if a building has more than three floors, it must have a lift. Then there are buildings with five floors that include a second level as well, therefore the first answer is incorrect. The second option is correct. The third alternative, which follows the same logic as the first, is incorrect. The fourth cannot be absolutely true, because if it were, even the 2 different structure would have had lifts.
2) “Some men are clearly intellectual, while others are clearly not, but should we call intermediate folks ‘intelligent’? Yes, I believe he is bright, but I am not inclined to call him intelligent.”
Which of the following best expresses the writer’s intent?
A)To label guys as intellectual when they aren’t particularly so must be an overuse of the term.
B)Every empirical concept has some ambiguity.
C)Whether or if someone is intelligent is a matter of taste.
D)There’s no need to be as indecisive as the author of the previous paragraph.
Explanation and Answer
Option A is the correct answer.
Explanation: In the concluding section of his sentence, the Writer clearly explains whether he should or should not be inclined to call him intelligent. The first option is the only one that expresses that intention, and hence is the answer.
Option B is incorrect since we cannot assume that all empirical notions are imprecise based on this, and it is also irrelevant. Option C and D are both ambiguous.
3)Ivory poachers murdered about 6,500 elephants in the African nation of Zinbaku between 1960 and 1970. The overall elephant population in Zinbaku declined from around 35,000 to slightly under 30,000 during that time. New anti-poaching measures were introduced in Zinbaku in 1970, and over 800 poachers were captured and expelled from the country between 1970 and 1980. Despite this, the elephant population in Zinbaku had declined to around 21,000 by 1980.
Which of the following, if true, would best explain the above-mentioned apparent paradox?
A)Between 1970 and 1980, poachers arrested in Zinbaku were rarely sentenced to long prison terms.
B)Between 1970 and 1980, demand for ivory declined due to well-publicized initiatives against elephant slaughter.
C)Between 1970 and 1980, the elephant population in Mombasa increased marginally.
D)Thousands of acres of woodland, the elephant’s native habitat, were removed for farming in Zinbaku between 1970 and 1980.
Explanation and Answer
Option D is the correct answer.
Explanation: The dilemma can be explained if one of the options provides an alternative explanation for the population decline. Option D accomplishes this.
4)Which of the following assumptions underpins the conclusion in the first sentence?
A)For most truck drivers, the roads outside of the motorway would be just as convenient as the highway.
B)Outside of motorways, most roads are not equipped to accommodate truck traffic.
C)The majority of trucks on the road nowadays have a capacity of more than 8 tonnes.
D)Automobiles are more often than trucks to be involved in collisions.
Explanation and Answer
Option C is the correct answer.
Explanation: The first sentence concludes that banning trucks with a payload capacity of more than 8 tonnes from highways would drive most trucks off the road.
The conclusion cannot be correct unless it is also true that, as 3 claims, most highway trucks have a capacity of more than 8 tonnes. As a result, the conclusion of the first line implies this decision, which is the best solution.
Conclusion
1. If you’re having trouble understanding the passage, break it down into smaller chunks. Determine the conclusion, facts, and hypotheses. This will aid comprehension of the passage while applying the structural technique to solve it.
2. Be wary of answer options that are in direct opposition to the question’s basic theme. Always read the question attentively and be aware of the questions it poses. If the question is, “Which of the following weakens the argument?” then there will undoubtedly be one answer that strengthens the case. Be wary of such responses; they are designed to perplex students. If you use this approach with caution, you will be able to avoid a lot of erroneous responses, thereby improving your score.
3. Rewrite portions in plain language
Critical reasoning passages always use difficult and perplexing language. As a result, it is preferable to simplify the terminology for your personal benefit. That way, you’ll have a better understanding of the issue and will be able to break it down and eliminate any irrelevant information that can obstruct your search for the correct answer.
4. Fully comprehend the question
Many times, students are perplexed by what is being asked in the question; therefore, it is critical to comprehend the question; otherwise, we are prone to marking the incorrect answer.
