Critical Reasoning Part 1 – Main Question Types – (GMAT/CAT/GRE/LSAT)



welcome to this video on critical reasoning this is the first video in the series and we went to start from the very basics of critical reasoning we will start with different parts of an argument and based on those different parts we have a few question types like assumption strengthen weaken and evaluate the argument we are going to discuss all of them and before we get started with a video please don't forget to visit us at perfect scores comm you can also like the page and share us at Facebook by going to facebook.com slash perfect scores and in case you wish to share any valuable feedback or you have a query for us you can always drop in a mail at perfect scores 89 at gmail.com so let's get started with this video now basically before going on to parts of the argument I would like to discuss the format of the question a lot of you would already be knowing that the question of a critical reasoning argument is basically composed of three parts one is the argument itself and then what you have is basically your question stem that asks you what you're supposed to do whether do you have to strengthen the argument or do you have to weaken it but it's all related to this argument and finally you have five answer options now contrary to what most people say that in verbal part of GMAT you do not have any perfect answers you just have to choose the best answer that is totally wrong for every answer you will have a proof you will have a proper reasoning why it is the correct answer and for every wrong option as well you will be able to eliminate it using some reason using some reasoning so basically you have to remember the argument the question stem and the options now this is important even for the purpose of your essay the aw essay because in the analytical writing assessment as well what you get is basically an argument although it's lengthier than the argument that you find in the critical reasoning question but whatever terms and terminology we'll be using over here in this video today like conclusion premises assumptions everything you'd be making use of that in your essay as well so please take care to listen to this video very carefully coming to the different types of questions strengthening the argument is a very common type ving is more common I would say then you have assumption questions again very common and inference questions now these four question types are going to make a very big part of the critical reasoning part of your GMAT sentence correction I could say about 70% to 80% of your critical reasoning questions are based on these four question types the next type of question is identified the reasoning a very rare one you may get just one of these in your entire wubble section next one is resolved and explained resolved or explained usually you have a paradox in this kind of question and you have to resolve it or explain why such a paradoxical situation is taking place the next one is evaluate the argument which is also connected to strengthen and weaken so that is something that we'll be including in the video today then you have find a flaw in the reasoning it is similar to identify the reasoning but also it is similar to weaken because we have to basically find a flaw again a rare question type then we have some bold-faced questions where two parts of the entire argument would be written in boldface and you have to determine the purpose of those parts and finally you have some questions on complete the passage or complete the argument where the last part of the argument is left blank and you have to complete it using one of the five options there may be a couple of more questions a couple of more rare questions but what you need to remember is that these four question types that I'm highlighting over here these are very important if you want to score well in critical reasoning you have to be very good these should be your strong areas how to strengthen the argument how to weaken it how to find the assumptions inference and along with that it will be easy for you to go through the evaluate the argument type of questions as well now we have parts of an argument in front of us now you need to understand that an argument is always comprised of two parts one is the main conclusion and the other is the premise or the premises which are basically used to support the conclusion I'll explain this with the help of an example you have this example in front of you you must fire a journal on its own it is not a complete valid argument it is just a random statement but when you have something like this you must fire John you failed to turn up the report on time you giving a reason why this activity must be carried out because you failed to turn up the report on time so as a result this supporting evidence is the premise of this argument and this part that you must fire John this becomes the conclusion of the argument here is another example for you I ate chocolate yesterday since then my tooth has started aching I must reduce consumption of chocolates to prevent took eggs in the future now in this example when you say I must reduce consumption of chocolates to prevent tooth aches in the future you ascertain something so that becomes the conclusion of this argument and what are you giving to support you are giving an instance where you ate chocolate and then your tooth started aching so that is the premise now as you can see from these examples that the conclusion and the premise are clearly stated in the argument most of the times however there is one extra which is very important which is basically the assumption of remember assumption is not stated it is something that the author or the argument has assumed while using the premises to come to the conclusion as a result it is always underlined it is not mentioned directly for example in this case you must fire John he failed to turn up the report on time the basic underlying assumption is that if a person does not turn up the report on time he must be fired that is why if John did that he must be fired so that would be the assumption another assumption could be failing to turn up the work is a sole evidence of why you must fire a person that is enough to get a person fired so that would also be an assumption in this case in the second example of eating chocolates and having toothache the underlying assumption would be that it's only because that I ate chocolate yesterday that my tooth has started aching it's no other reason that is responsible for my toothache another assumption would be that this pattern is going to repeat itself it's not just a coincidence every time I eat chocolate my tooth will ache so as a result I must stop or I must reduce my consumption of chocolate so these two were the basic assumptions so let's go ahead and revise what these three important parts are conclusion is the main point of an argument it is the assert a ssin that is given by the argument and usually it is identified by the help of words like thus ends must therefore whenever you are recommending something or you are suggesting something so usually you have these words sometimes directly it is mentioned that does it can be concluded or the is this so it's very easy to identify the conclusion of an argument it can be in the first half it can be the second half it can also be in the middle of an argument the next important thing is premised premise is basically supporting evidence sometimes it may not be supporting but it is always the evidence that is given to uphold this conclusion all right so that is the promisor all the extra information the facts and figures that are given an example that is given a cause-and-effect relationship that is given all that is the premise that are basically used to put the conclusion forward and finally we have the assumptions which is basically the unstated link between the premises and the conclusion if the assumptions are not correct the argument will be weakened so that is how we solve the strengthened and weakened questions if we are going with the assumptions we are strengthening the argument and if we are going opposite to the assumptions if we are showing that the assumptions of an argument are incorrect we are basically weakening that argument so this is how you are supposed to strengthen or weaken an argument and that is why this information is very important because this information helps you to answer three basic types of questions one is what is the assumption over here second is how do you strengthen the argument and third is how do we kill it here is an example for you to practice it says mobile producer X has inserted a new chip into its mobiles to help the battery stay for a longer duration there has been tremendous growth in sales so what basically we are saying is that what this company this producer X is doing is it is helping to improve the sales so soils are going up because of this new introduction so mobile producer Y is planning to introduce the same of chip in its product it expects that its revenues will exceed those are smaller rival soon so the basic conclusion is that if why does the same as X has done its sales will also increase now in this case you can see there is not a proper written down conclusion there is no words like does or ends are therefore so confusion over here is hidden in a sense the conclusion would be that if y does the same as X it will also see an increase in the sales what are the premises all the information that it will give is given to us that becomes your premise and what is the assumption in this case the basic assumption in case of these kind of arguments that involve an analogy is always this that whatever applies to X applies to Y or in the end the basic assumption is that x and y are similar now if this assumption is correct this entire conclusion this entire argument would be strong however if you find a way of proving that x and y are not similar to each other or the analogy is not correct or basically that this assumption is not correct we will be able to weaken the argument so the strategy that you need to follow is first of all read the question stem you do not have to read the argument first because that would waste time you would not know what are you looking for so you should read the question stem what is the question asking you to do is it asking you to find the Assumption the conclusion the inference or is it asking you to evaluate the argument strengthen it or weaken it the next step that you need to do is now you need to go through the argument you need to find the conclusion the premises and the assumption so that you can work upon the argument the next thing is you have to predict what your answer should do for example you've read that you have to find the conclusion you should predict and in many cases you must write it down what the conclusion should be what your answers should do if it's an assumption you should make a small list of all the different assumptions that you think are holding the argument together so that will be easier to narrow down your answer choices and once you have the answer clearly in front of us you have the prediction you can follow the process of elimination to eliminate all the answer choices that are not going with the answers that you have selected an important thing to remember is scratch work now this differs from person to person some people would like to write each one of them the conclusion the premise and the assumptions some people would basically form a flowchart for example I personally use to form a flowchart for the argument a kind of diagram that shows me what is happening in the argument and when however it's your personal wish but scratch work should be there hundred percent of the time you should have the flow chart or the consume the conclusion premise assumption in front of you then you should have your answer in front of you what do you think is the answer and finally like sentence correction you should have your five options in front of you ABCDE so that whenever you find an option is wrong you can eliminate it at the same point of time and suppose he left with to answer choices you can easily narrow down your thinking and eliminate one of them based on what your answer is so let's go ahead and do the questions basically which are very direct you just have to find the assumption in that case but before that a very important thing is the negation test now I told you in an argument you have a premise and you have the basic conclusion what is unstated between them is the assumption and I have also told you that if you go with the assumption it will strengthen the argument if you go against the assumption it will weaken this so what basically is this negation test for example you have five options in front you ABCDE now in all cases it may not be very easy to find out the assumption by reading the argument so you'll have to choose the options what you basically have to do in the negation test is negate each option you have to consider the negative or the exact opposite of all the options suppose you take the opposite of a and you see that whether it is strengthening or weakening but it's not doing anything that means the original option a had nothing to do with the argument so that is crossed off let's come to B suppose when you negate B the resulting option is also it's neither strengthening nor is it weakening that means even B originally was not the assumption now suppose you do this for all and let's say you are left with E now you have taken the opposite or the negation of E and you find that this new option is weakening the argument now the opposite of e is weakening the argument that means E is the original assumption so that would be our answer so that is a negation test sometimes you may find the assumption quite clearly but sometimes you may not find it plus another case where you after using the negation test is to verify your answers it does not take a lot of time just a couple of seconds to think about the option and the negation of that option in your mind just think whatever answer you've chosen if you take the opposite of that negation of that is it weakening the argument or not if it is weakening then that means your answer is correct so the conclusion plus premises and you have the assumptions and if you weaken the Assumption you are going to weaken the argument so here is a question based on assumption and here are the five options if you want you can go ahead and pause this video and you can also try to solve this at your own end however we are going ahead with the question CW a chain of stores has relied on a supermarket concept of computerized inventory control and customers self-service to eliminate the category of clerks from its force of employees it now plans to employ the same concept in selling children's clothes the plan of CW assumes that now we already knew the question that it's an assumption question since the heading says assumption so we do not read the question stem first however what you should do is you should have at least the options in front of you so what are the premises and the conclusion telling that CW is relying on a supermarket concept of computerized inventory control and customer cell service so that means there is no need of clerks now it is trying to employ the same concept in selling children's clothes so if you see this is a kind of analogy again so whatever it was trying to do in the chain of stores the supermarket concept it is now trying to employ the same concept in selling children's clothes so what is the basic assumption let's go ahead and try the negation test when we take option 8 say supermarkets will not also be selling children's clothes in the same manner if you negate it it says supermarkets will be selling children's clothes in the same manner now tell me is this new option strengthening or weakening the argument well it is doing none of them that means a is not the original assumptions you can easily cross that out now base a is personal service by the personnel is not required for selling children's clothes successfully now if you negate it it says personal service by personnel is required for selling children's clothes successfully if you see this option is going to weaken the argument because what the company what CW is doing is its eliminating the category of clerks from its force of employees that means there will be no personal interaction and if we take this assumption that first service is required that means that the sales will come down so that means be candid option let's go to see it says the same kind of computers will be used in inventory control for both clothes and the sales at CW now if you go against this option it says the same kind of computers will not be used in inventory control and we are not talking about computers although we talking about computerized inventory control but what is the kind of computer that is being used that does not have any effect so no relation at all see option is not the answer when we come to D it says a cell service plan cannot be employed without computerized inventory control if you take the negation of that if you say a self-service plan can be employed without computerized inventory control it is not weakening the argument at all that means originally option D was not the assumption and then we have e clerks are the only employees of C W who could be assigned tasks related to inventory control now we do not even need to negate this option because it is totally out of scope so hence our answer is going to be B now remember there are a few option types which are usually incorrect in critical reasoning first of all the ones that are extreme extreme answers are usually incorrect both for critical reasoning and reading comprehension answers that have words like must always never no one all these unless the same information is mentioned in the passage or the argument second is out of scope if your option is talking about something that does not live within the scope of the argument even that option is incorrect and thirdly when you have partially correct options partially correct means partially wrong and partially wrong is completely wrong right so even if you have half correct half wrong option it cannot be your answer your answer has to be 100% correct we have another question a weapon smuggling incident recently took place in country why we all know that why is a closed society so why is Council must have known about the weapons and the question we have which of the following is an assumption that would make the conclusion or Shakira correct so basically the argument is this that a smuggling incident took place why is a closed society so wise Council must have known so let's go ahead and map down our answer choices let's write down an incident took place in white why is a closed society so wise council must have known and what is the basic underlying assumption over here that somewhere the council has something to do with a closed society isn't that the assumption let's go ahead and see what option is is if a council knows about an incident it must have intended to use the weapons for its own purposes now we can not take that as an assumption that if a council knew about the incident what was the basic assumptions so it is out of scope so a cannot be the answer coming to be for council claims that it knew nothing it must have known everything about it again there's no need to apply the negation test we know that it is not relevant it is out of scope it is totally opposite to the actual assumption C says if a council does not permit weapons to enter a country it is a closed society now we do not have any information of permitting weapons so we cannot say that even C goes out of scope D option says if a country is a closed society its council has a large contingent of armed guards patrolling its borders that is totally irrelevant it is totally not mentioned so we are left with option e it says if a country is a closed society its council has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country so the same looks like the correct assumption however let's try the negation test on it the negation would be if a country is a closed society its council has no knowledge about everything that occurs in the country now if you take some time and try to insert this into the argument you'll find that it is weakening the argument that means what that the original option e was the assumption so the answer is e so remember one thing whenever you have Assumption questions you always have to apply the negation test to verify your answer choices it is very important and a lot of times you may find that the answer that you have chosen is not correct because it is not passing this negation test so it's very important for verification purposes the next question we have again on assumption a coal power company gained greater profits and provided energy to consumers at lower rates per unit of energy by building larger capacity more efficient plants and by stimulating greater use of energy within its area to continue these trends the company planned to replace an old plant by a plant with triple the capacity of its largest plant the question is the company's plan assumed each of the following accept that means four out of five options will be the assumptions the one option that is not the assumption that is our target so these are the five options in front of us let's make a scratch paper we have mapped down our answer choices and let's go through the argument once again the coal power company gained profits and provided energy to consumers lower rates so basically we have profits plus lower rates of energy by building larger capacity more efficient plants and how this was possible by better plants better in capacity better in efficiency and stimulating greater use of energy in its area to continue the trends the company planned to replace an old plant by a plant with triple the capacity of its largest plant so basically there is a plan that we can see here the plan is that if you replace the old plant with a new one with a better capacity with a higher capacity that is going to continue the financial trend of having more profits so as you can see this is the conclusion let's go through each of the options it says demand for energy within the company's area of service would increase now if you see this option if this option is correct it would strengthen and if you take the negation of this option it would be canet that means a is an assumption so there's no need to cross out because it's an accept question and in accept questions never cross out always write down what your argument is doing what your answer option is doing for the argument so that at the end you can find out the odd-man-out basis expenses would not rise beyond the level that could be compensated for by efficiency or volume of operation or both you can see this is also a basic assumption because if this is correct the actual option would be strengthened however if you take the negation of this B option it would weaken it that means B is also an assumption coming down to C C says the plant plant would be sufficiently reliable in service to contribute a net financial benefit to the company as of again it is saying that the new plant would definitely help in achieving the profits that are planned so that means that C is also the assumption they say safety measures to be instituted for the new plant would be the same as those for the plant it would replace now this can be a problematic information because if you take the negation of their safety measures to be instituted for the new plant would not be the same now UCD is not having any effect because it's talking about safety measures which is nowhere mentioned in the argument that means what D is out of scope it is not a proper assumption let's go to e the tripling of capacity would not result in insuperable technological obstacles to efficiency this is absolutely a correct assumption because if you weaken it that the tripling of capacity would cause a lot of technological obstacles the entire argument gets weakened so that means e is also the assumption and now you can compare all your options in the scratch paper and you can see that the odd one out is answer D which is the correct answer we have another question on assumption the increase in the number of newspaper articles exposed as fabrications serves to bolster the contention that editors are more interested in boosting circulation than in printing the truth even minor publications has stars to check such apparent fraud the argument above assumes that now we are going to go ahead and find out all these five options let's put down the answer choices we have right so we've put down the answer choices we have to find the assumption the argument states that increase in number of articles so that means a lot of fabrications have increased and it is supporting the contention that editor are more interested in boosting circulation so their main purposes poo circulation and what premises are the giving is that even minor publications have stuffs that means that major publications would definitely be having such stars to check such apparent fraud means stars are there to check apparent fault but in spite of these editing stuffs the editors who are actually interested more in boosting circulation are still able to get these articles published the fabrications published so we have to find a link between editors and the fabrications that would be the assumption so essays newspaper stories expose those fabrications are a recent phenomena it does not depend it does not matter whether it's recent or not that is not the assumption everything in newspaper prints must be factually verifiable again that is not a basic assumption because if in spite of that in spite of the staff to check such fraud such publications are getting exposed such publications are getting published ceases fact-checking is more comprehensive for minor publications than for major now we are not doing any comparison here that is not the basic underlying assumption D says only recently of newspapers admitted to publishing intentionally fraudulent stories again the time does not matter at all Sudi is also not the answer e the editors of newspapers are the people who decide what to print in the newspapers this is absolutely correct and this is the underlying assumption that makes the answer e because if you go against it if you say the editors are not the people who decide what to print then we cannot blame the editors that they are more interested in boosting circulation so that means the entire argument will break down it will get weakened so we have verified the and the answer is e now we have a question on strengthening we have a very common question research shows that hockey and football players are more quickly moved to hostility and aggression than our athletes in non-contact sports such as swimming but the researchers conclusion that contact sports encourage and teach participants to be hostile and aggressive is untenable the football and hockey players were probably more hostile and aggressive to start with than the swimmers which of the following if true would more strengthen the conclusion drawn by the psychological researchers so the researchers conclusion is here it is highlighted over here and these are the five options that we have in front of them let's map down the answer choices once again so basically the research is showing that hockey and football players are more hostile they are more aggressive and what the researchers are saying is that it's contact sports that make these sports people more hostile and more aggressive this is something that we have to prove now option aces the football and hockey players become more hostile and aggressive during the season and remain so during the off-season whereas there was no increase in aggressiveness among the soil so this may be a strong contender because this is going with the assumption that it is contact sports that cause a person to be hostile and aggressive so let's put this mark over here B says the football and hockey players but not the swimmers were aware at the start of the experiment that they were being tested now this does not throw any light this does not strengthen or weaken the argument could go either ways is taken to be is not the answer see says the same psychological research indicated that the football and hockey players had a great respect for cooperation in team play the swimmers were most concerned with excelling as individual competitors now tame play and cooperation has nothing to do with being hostile and aggressive so si is totally out of scope d option says the research studies were designed to include new athletes who participated in both contact and non-contact sports now even if there were such at leats it would not make any difference OD is again out of scope ESA's throughout the US more incidents of fan violence occur at baseball games than occur at hockey or football now if you see the argument is not talking about baseball at all so this one is also thrown out of scope so that means our answer is going to be option a next we have a weakening question for you production houses like C pitchers TCF etc provide stock options to their employees these companies are employing the highest number of people in the industry there is little reason why most production houses cannot provide the same benefits to their employees which of the following if true would weaken the argument now if you have a scratch paper over here it's very easy to predict the answer what your answer should do is that you have to go against this conclusion that you have to give a reason why the production houses cannot provide the same benefits that the other production houses cannot provide the same benefits so if you give a reason like that it would totally weak in this argument let's go through the options one by one so these are the five options in front of us let's go through option a stock options is not offered to all employees of a company this is irrelevant we're talking about the other production houses so not relevant bases see pictures and TCF have fewer members on their board members of board whether the number is big or the number is small does not have any effect see says most of the production houses do not have the tax benefits that see and TCF have because they are the biggest employers in the industry now this can be reason it's giving us a reason we are looking for a reason if you remember in the answer choice so the reason is tax benefits there are no tax benefits that these production houses have so that means that our answer see could be one possibility ji says other production houses have much more business on it not talking about how much business do we have the trend to offer stock options has not caught on yet again this is not a good reason for the argument to be weakened our answer is going to be see now remember as I told you in the beginning of the video that you always need to have a reason why you are eliminating an option you need to have a specific reason in mind why you're eliminating something and you also need to have a reason why you are choosing an option it's not guesswork that is going on here you have a specific reason for every action that you're taking in critical reasoning so with that we know C is the answer the next one again based on weakening the rate of violent crime the state is up 30 percent from last year the fault lies entirely look at this word entirely in our code system recently judges sentences have been lenient criminals can now to honest anything without fear of a long prison term the argument about would be weakened if it were true that before going to the options list just write down our options over here on the scratch paper it says the violent crime has increased so violent crime gone up and the reason why the argument is saying is because of leniency of the judges so if you find something that proves this relation to be incorrect or we give another reason why the violent crime has gone up that would totally weaken the argument so let's go ahead and see which of the options does that option a sales 75% of the other states in the nation of lower crime rates than does the state nuts talking about other states totally irrelevant bases gray collar crime in the state has also increased now what we are talking about is violent crime gray collar crime has nothing to do with the argument so be is incorrect C says forty five percent of the police in this state have been laid off now this is giving us a reason why crime can increase so this may be the answer because it's not leniency of the charges but the reduction in the police force that is causing the rate of violent crime to go up so this may be the answer this is Paul's show that 55% of the population oppose capital punishment now where this punishment come in to over here it's not weakening the argument at all he says the state has hired 20 new judges to compensate for deaths and retirements now if the compensation is being done for debts and retirements that means that the total number of judges is still going to remain the same because if 20 judges have either died or retired 20 new judges are coming so the number of judges has nothing to do with the argument the answer is going to be C another question on weaken our work proves to be very successful in the past one year each of our five clients has experienced the fastest growth it must be fastest growth in their history therefore if a company wants to increase do not hesitate to call G&G since we are the solution which are the following if two more seriously jeopardizes the validity of the argument and this is another form of a weakening question we have the options in front of us the conclusion says that if you come and call G&G only then will you be successful so GOG causes success if we prove this relation to be false we'll be able to weaken it if we show something else can cause success there's something else that this entire argument would get weakened so let's go through the options now these are the five options a says most of the consultants at G&G wilt MBA degrees now it does not matter what degree do they hold because nothing about MBA has been mentioned even without the help of G&G the five clients of G&G will achieve the same great growth rate insane now this may be an answer because if this is true that means G&G did not have any part to play so it will definitely jeopardize the validity of the argument so B can be the answer C says Gaz is one of the five leading management consultant companies now this does not matter whether it's at the top three or the top five of the top 10 or does it come at the eleventh position so C is totally irrelevant Dae says GOG uses an updated accounting approach to help companies to cut cost what kind of approach doesn't use again not relevant to the argument he says all of the five clients are doing business in financial industry now does not matter in which industry are they doing the business so he is also totally irrelevant the answer is going to be B we have another question but this one is going to be very direct question you just have to find the conclusion of the argument so here is the argument the battleship enterprise is in danger of imploding from laser beams if the wop generators are not meteor resistant captain Rock says that no malleable circuits are meteor resistant and all wop generators are made of malleable circuits what is the conclusion that can be drawn from captain Rock's reasoning and you have the five option cell so let's go ahead and first of all write down our options now what it says is that there is a danger of imploding or there's a danger against laser beams if the wop generators are not meteor resistant all right so if there is no meteor resistant for the work generators then the laser beams can attack the enterprise and there is a danger of imploding captain Rock says no malleable circuits are meteor resistance so the malleable circuits are also not meteor resistant all Wahb generators are made of malleable circuits that basically equates both of these that all the warp generators are basically made of malleable circuits they are not meteor resistant so in all this information what is the conclusion let's go through option a it says laser beams do not affect the malleable circuits now this cannot be concluded for the argument it's not the answer B says the battleship enterprise is not in danger however that is opposite to what is actually happening because of work generators are made of malleable circuits that means the work generators are not meteor resistant that means that there is danger so B is totally incorrect it is basically a weakening statement or it is totally opposite to the answer C says the enterprise will implode now although this is an extreme answer but this is actually correct because this is what is happening it says there is a danger if they are not meteor resistant and we know they are not meteor resistant because they are made of malleable circuits and whatever is made of malleable circuit that is not at all Meteor resistance you can form the link over here very clearly so we know that in any case the battleship enterprise will improve let's go through options DN e as well D says web generators are meteor resistant totally opposite and E is none of the above so the answer is going to be C now here we have a new type of question which is evaluate the argument it's not a strengthening or weakening question but a mixture if you are given an argument you are basically given the options in the form of questions right so options usually in the value a the argument kind of question are given to you in the form of questions so what you have to do is take the extreme ends let's suppose the answer is no and the answer is yes now either in one case the yes will strengthen the no will weaken or in other case the yes will weaken and the no will strengthen so this must happen only then will this option be effectively able to evaluate the argument suppose let's take this D option for instance you take the two extremes this one is doing nothing and this extreme is also doing nothing that means this option is doing nothing to evaluate the argument let's take this example as well and you take the two extremes yes and no either this will strengthen and no will weaken or yes will weaken annual strength in case this is happening this option will be useful to evaluate the argument so let's go ahead and try one question on that quite a long argument we have in front of us let's put down the options it says e monkeys and Rome often rub a certain type of warm into their fur secretions of these warms have been shown to contain two chemicals that are potent B repellents in other words among keys portant be repellents and be scary parasites that deliberate the e monkeys that means the bee repellents are actually saving these among keys because otherwise bees would affect them and they would carry parasites so this is the first thing that we know that e monkeys are being saved by the bee repellents right so we've written that down the wrapping behavior is rare except during the rainy season when bee populations are at their peak and this is usually done when bees are very high in terms of number in terms of their population and this is the conclusion you get the word therefore therefore the monkeys probably rub the worms into their fur because doing so helps protect them against bills now much of the falling would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument so you have five questions whether the two chemicals provided any protection for the worms against their own patatas not let's take two extremes suppose the answer is yes and suppose the answer is no on further evaluation you will find that none of them is strengthening and none of them is weakening you do not get a proper strengthened weakened pair over here so that means option a is incorrect option B says whether the type of warm used by the monkeys is found in other parts of the world totally irrelevant to the question so B is also incorrect C says whether animals other than the ease rub insects of any kind into therefore totally relevant we're talking about a monkey's only D says whether the only time the warms are readily available is during the rainy season if you take two extremities yes and no you will see that yes is strengthening and no is weakening that means if we get the actual answer to this option D we will be able to find out whether the argument is strong or it is weak that means D can be the answer he says whether secretions of any other insects accessible to the East contain chemicals that repel bees again any other insects totally out of scope it is irrelevant to this argument that means the answer is D okay that's all there for this video on critical reasoning remember some of the questions may not be very easy to understand it first but what I recommend is you pause the video try to solve those questions on your own and then you can go ahead and see the answers and another thing regarding time right now you can take as much time as you want but during the test you should be able to come down to an average of two minutes per question because you can save time a lot in sentence correction but for critical reasoning and really comprehension you definitely need this time on an average per question as soon as you think that you're going beyond four minutes that would be an alarming point for you you should not cross four minutes in any condition for any critical reasoning question and less than one minute is also not at all advisable so basically the strategy that we discussed was you need to read the question stem first and then what you have to do you have to go ahead to the argument and find out what your answer should do and then you have to apply the process of elimination with that very important thing is crutch work without scratch work if you keep everything in your mind and do not write it down it's going to be very confusing because usually critical reasoning questions at the top 700 are very confusing to begin with so scratch work is something that is going to help you and again going against the myth that a lot of people hold every answer will have a reason why it is correct there has to be a reason for every elimination there has to be a reason for every answer there are no guesses there is no best answer there is only one answer in these questions see you then using all this knowledge I hope you are able to go ahead and practice some questions you can use the official guide you can use the verbal review which is the official verbal review to get started with but those two books are completely a necessity if you have to go ahead and prepare for critical reasoning beyond that we are going to have another video which is going to talk about the remaining critical reasoning question types and you can go ahead and visit this website to get more information more drills and more videos and you can share and like our page at facebook.com/ and in case of any query or feedback you can always drop a mail email thank you for now

48 thoughts on “Critical Reasoning Part 1 – Main Question Types – (GMAT/CAT/GRE/LSAT)”

  1. THIS HAS TO BE THE BEST VIDEO ON CRITICAL REASONING !HANDS DOWN.Why did not I come across it earlier!?Thanks a lot for making it easy.

  2. so we need no to know about or dont have to identify about premises but we need to know conclusion
    all we have to study the whole passage and understand it

  3. Hi ,

    First of all thanks for the insightful lecture on CR questions. I just have one query. In the example discussed under Strengthen category, the answer should be 'C' because the conclusion states that being involved in contact sports leads to hostile nature is untenable.
    Kindly share your views.

  4. maam in 31.57 hostile and aggression is untenable mean illogical so we want to prove that this sport is teaching hostile and aggression

  5. A solid explanation, I loved the video. Please help to upload some more videos. Critical Reasoning of GMAT and Logical Reasoning of GRE same dear mam …

  6. I think at 34:00 answer should be 'C', because if it is true then it champions the fact underlined by you. i.e. contact sports doesn't teaches to be aggressive and hostile. Any comments??

  7. Hi, can you please explain in the assumption base question you gave an example of the supermarket, in that why the option A is incorrect, as we negate the option it will strengthen the arument?

  8. About the question starting at 28:21.
    Option B and E both are generally correct irrespective of their relatedness to the paragraph. I didn't get it, why the assumption that 'everything a newspaper prints must be factually verifiable' should be ruled out?

  9. THE VIDEO HAS EVERYTHING THAT IS RELEVANT WITH RESPECT TO CRITICAL REASONING TOPIC. AND THE BEST PART IS THERE'S NO 'BAKWAS'. EXAMPLES ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT.
    HOWEVER, SOMETIMES THE LADY HAS NOT EXPLAINED(IN DETAIL) WHY A CERTAIN OPTION IS BEING ELIMINATED.
    (EG WHY NEGATION OF AN OPTION WEAKENS THE ARGUMENT/ WHY CERTAIN OPTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION BEING ASKED. )
    OTHERWISE THE VIDEO HAS ALL YOU HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO LEARN FROM THE SAID TOPIC.

  10. Hi…Will you please tell me how can I improve my verbal reasoning ? Eagerly waiting for your reply because I am giving my GRE in next month.

  11. a brilliant lecture I must say. The best thing available on internet for this topic! and this is not an exaggeration!

  12. I have a doubt in weakening ques (violent crime one). There you have corrected the option with "police" one. Is it relevant to use the word that's not been used in the passage? Because in all other ques you have marked them as "out of scope"

  13. you are doing good by teaching gmat students but the correct option was little highlited before finding the correct answer.

  14. Hi,
    I have been through half of the video so far and already loving it ! The assumption negation method was eyeopener !!

    PS: You can up the production value by just using a better mic !

  15. this is easier method ever to learn critical reasoning i think…. I was complex idea about it..but now I m confined.. thanks mam

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *