Free Webinar: How to Go from Hating to LOVING Critical Reasoning



all right welcome everyone and we are live on YouTube live I almost feel like we should have a cold open like Saturday Night Live just something would live at the end of it seems like the right way to go thanks for joining us I guess it's not Saturday night it's Tuesday afternoon maybe Tuesday evening where wherever you are but let's dive in if you're taking the time to be here you want to get better at critical reasoning like the session says you want to go from hating it hope you don't hate it but you may not like it you may not be as efficient at it to loving it or thriving in it or just being great at it and that title doesn't come from just marketing spend although we've got some people who are pretty good at that it really comes from just a few minutes before starting this section I actually heard from tutoring student whose whole thing was about a month ago we took the official GMAT and you know it had his enhance score reports that critical reasoning was by far is worth 20th percentile something like that just not particularly good at it got an email from him you know half an hour or so ago and he was saying he's like man this isn't saying I don't check the answer key anymore I just know I'm right used to take me two and a half three minutes per question now I'm done in you know then not 30 seconds but a minute minute and a half something like that it's like my pacing is better I'm confident the whole time and what it really came down to was like a lot of you like a lot of people he was just doing it the wrong way and kind of that the most classic way you could think to do it how do you do critical reasoning well most people will do something like read and react they'll just see the paragraph and start reading it okay I guess this is about an experiment that they did in prisons and so okay that's interesting or hey this is about a new mining technique that may have environmental difficulties okay I guess I'll read about that for right now or something whatever the topic matter is hey there's this fictional countries that are rivals and there may be some consequences okay I'll read about that draw questions we're going to get to will they read and then typically they go and do some process of elimination they get to the end they go who okay that was weird so okay they want me to strengthen this argument so what does they do and then they kind of go through and spend a lot of time there that's not how you should do most critical reasoning and so we talk about it's it's bad ROI return on investment people spend too much time they get worn down the more time you spend on critical reasoning questions the more mentally you're worn out for your next reading comprehension passage or sentence correction or if you did verbal before quant before you get to those math problems it wears you out so not only is it not an effective way to go when you're really densely incredibly reading every answer choice to do process of elimination when you don't have to it wears you out it spends a lot of time it doesn't get your right answers and so we want to train you to do is kind of do what this student in Toronto has been doing and it's just a tack and so we just take a look at one of these this is a statistically a pretty difficult problem we're going to come back to and actually do it in a second but I want you to look at is if you start reading look at how dense and kind of bizarre it is we've got to fake countries that are kind of at odds with the relations there you know we've got officials confirming maybe a translation we got the Institute of King : studies if you're trying to read this and it's question 9 or question 18 and you've just done some sentence correction you've just just done a reading comprehension passage it's hard to get into and then you look at some of these answer choices as we'll see a little bit later they're dense and there's got to be a better way so let's bring in some celebrity endorsers here we want to first talk about how do you categorize every single critical reasoning question fits into one of these categories and so if step one is you read the question stem first it'll stop the acronym shrug the question stem walk but the idea of what these questions are if you know what they are just kind of remember swim just to give you an idea may whatever type of question is I know how to reacts well Katie ledecky and and Michael Phelps champions who are very good at efficiency and excellence and something that a lot of people hate they love so we'll talk about that if you can categorize questions strengthen weaken questions strengthen are those which is the following dust justifies the the argument above supports the argument above you know any of those visit explain or resolve is kind of a subset of that instead of an argument you're just trying to say hey how do I strengthen the idea these two paradoxical things could be true together weaken questions are which of the following undermines or calls into question the argument it's important to know is if it's a strengthened or weakened question will also say that includes assumption questions and those that say you know what would be useful to evaluate the conclusion when you see any of these questions stems that you know you're given an argument somewhere and you need to either strengthen it or make it more likely to be true or we can it show but it's not likely to be true useful to evaluate just means hey it's a flawed argument we need to figure out can we believe this or not you're given an argument and you want to spend your time really understanding the argument first if it's inference they're asking you to draw a conclusion if it's method and that includes bold-faced questions those are the ones that ask you to describe the reasoning these two are process of elimination you won't be able to you know directly describe what's going on there are a little more answer choice driven strengthen weakened question and assumption useful to evaluate and resolve the paradox and all of our sub types they're really argument driven their stimulus driven if you understand what's going on there you want to go look for what you want in the answer choices you don't want to just wait around for the right answer choice to appear to you and so the technique that we want to have you do first is understand flaws in the argument for go back real quick to to just this kind of demo type question typically what happens is people spend two thirds of their time on the answer choice its art one-third of their time on the stimulus and then two thirds of their time really thoroughly analyzing each answer choice we want you to flip it we want you to spend two thirds of your time on the stimulus itself really understand the argument what are the flaws how might it be vulnerable to being weakened or what would need to be strengthened if you really understand the argument then you're kind of a breeze through most of the answer choices and so let's start but just looking at a blueprint how do they come up with these arguments well if you go back to Aristotle syllogism 2500 3000 years ago something like that it's kind of the underpinnings of what really is logic took a philosophy class you've seen it we've got two premises all men are mortal and Socrates is a man and then a conclusion and if we know that Socrates is a man and that is part of a group of which all are mortal yes we can prove this conclusion so this is an airtight argument can't be strengthened it's already definitely true can't be weakened it's airtight and so you know it's it's a perfectly logical argument now how did they then change that to make it one that could be strengthened or could be weakened what they do is they change one thing that's a little bit different from what was there now instead of all men are mortal and Socrates is a man we have all men are mortal Socrates is a dog now that's a pretty big gap but if you think about they're similar enough right we're men and dogs both mammals you know both have a fair amount of body hair at times both can smell and probably don't bathe as often as they show they're similar just not exactly the same thing that's the gap they're passing off dog and men as two things that should connect what we know that they don't now if you see that that's the disconnect that's the gap in logic okay one of these truths is about men the other one's about dogs if it's a strengthening question what do you want to do you want to link them together you want to say something like what's true for men is true for dogs or dogs and men are both mammals and both share the same characteristics with regard to mortality if it's strengthened you want those to be closer together if it's weakened you want to show that they're different and so either way once whether it's strength in a weekend you know what's on your shopping list it's a man's not the same thing as dog I need to go put them together if it's strengthen pull them apart if it's weakened but you know what your job is and so that's one way they could do it but let's say they probably won't give you man versus dog on the gene that what they'll do is give you something maybe a little bit more business-friendly or scientific or something like that so let's take a look at this one if they say the unemployment rate has dropped therefore fewer people are unemployed well look at the gap here unemployment rate is a rape it's a percentage or even John up it's the number of people unemployed and finish that one up for you divided by the total number of people in the labor pool right so it's a rate this is an actual number of people and so the conclusion is only about the numerator whereas the inside the premise is about the entire fraction there that entire ratio and so if you look at that you can say the rates not the same thing as the number of people or you kind of look at hey I know what the rate is it's the number unemployed divided by the total labor pool well then that's your gap that's man versus dog if you think about okay if it's a strengthening question I want to show that the rate and the number the number of people hasn't changed in the labor pool so if the number of the you know if the fraction went down it's cuz the numerator went down not because the denominator got bigger if it's a weekend question you want to show that that's totally different and say here in a second actually it's you know it's a based on the labor pool size right it's almost like you know whatever side of the political spectrum you're on when the jobs number comes out but the party in control wants to say look the other employments down the other one wants to go yeah but everybody's out of the labor pool and so you know it's it's you know it's that's your man versus dog sometimes it's two words that are similar but different maybe man versus dog or some others we'll see other times it's hey the conclusions about an actual number but the premise is about a rate or a percentage or something else those two things don't quite connect if you train yourself to recognize those gaps in logic most of the time the right answer will jump off the screen at you if you know what you're looking for this is the major flaw in the argument then you're shopping for the right answer choice you're not trying on every answer choice to see if it fits and so the strategy we want to use really is do critical reasoning strengthen and weekend so inference and Method are our process of elimination but if it's strengthened or weakened drew critical reasoning the way that I shop for pants I'll be honest it's a gap polo shirt I got gap jeans on a little bit below of a screen here when I need something that's clothing related I find the gap I go get exactly what I want and I get the heck out of there before they can sell me something I don't want because you go to a mall there's all kinds people can I spray you with perfume and mrs. fields that pump that cookies smell out there you walk a there's a sale on camping equipment over here there's people trying to get your attention everywhere if you've got free Saturday afternoon maybe that's not bad if you've got on average a minute and forty five the new critical reasoning questions or any verbal question you want to be really efficient and you don't want to be talked into answers that are wrong so what do we about that one find the gap what's the gap in logic is it man versus dog is it unemployment rate or rate versus number unemployed an actual number if you can find that gap then you've got a shopping list you won't be able to write the correct answer choice word for word but you do have a list in mind if these are the things that I'm looking for in a right answer I need to connect men and dogs I need to show that the number and the unemployment rate or the same thing you know what your shopping list is and then you want to get out of there before they they sell you something you don't want now to continue the analogy here which may be a little cheesy at first my promise the more you use it the more you'll see the value in it when I was going through some initial critical reasoning with that tutoring student who was struggling what was interesting was firstly I was really hammering hey spent 2/3 of your time on the stimulus let's figure out what the gap is and then we'll be you know pretty amazing he would find a gap he would say hey this is an actual number but they want a percent or vice-versa these two things aren't the same and you read a word-for-word very carefully and then really think about it okay I'm not quite sure let me hold on to this one and then B same thing his entire demeanor would change if he had identified the gap when the right answer came he would read it and go oh yeah of course you would just you know feel in his voice he knew it was right but then he would continue process of elimination and this whole process of elimination I speak it out loud it certainly was a 2 plus minute extravaganza when he already knew what the answer was and he was letting them talk him into too many wrong answers he was keeping too many answers around now remember that initial one we looked at for critical reasoning question where they look like it's usually four sentences for the stimulus then a question stem then five answer choices if you do process elimination but keep three answer choices around and then keep working well then you're doing that by the time you've picked your answer you've read probably eight nine ten sentences that aren't part of the the stimulus not really the argument at all you're just so far afield from what the argument is that it's hard to really be sharp on it and so we want you to find the gap spend your time figure out what's wrong with the argument and then scan the answer choices so if it's an answer that doesn't meet what you're looking for if you're looking for dark jeans don't try on cargos don't try on sweaters or scarves no hey I'm looking for man vs. dog none of these answer choices a doesn't talk about that B doesn't talk about that hey guess what C does now you lock in so you think one of the biggest resources you add that's expendable on test day there's time and there's focus you want to spend time and focus where you know it's going to matter if you've identified the gap spend your time and focus there know so many pause here for a second we're gonna do some examples any questions about you guys see what I'm seeing there now first you've got to diagnose that it's strength in a weekend this won't work on inference or method or reasoning they're definitely more process of elimination but if it's right strength on a weekend too often people do a lot of process of elimination when really they should be attacking answers and going that way so let's put it into practice with a handful of questions here and I'll give a little bit of space here so you guys can see the whole thing why don't we have you guys take I don't even want you to necessarily work on the answer choices I'm gonna step off give you guys about 45 seconds first thing I want you to do is recognize what's the question stem you're undermining an existing conclusion so it's a weakened question go through this and see if you can't find for me type it in if you find it what's the gap in logic what's the problem with this argument I'll step off for about 45 seconds and then we'll come back and see once we have that how easy it is to attack the answer choices problem awesome I love what a live we've been back and forth on emails good good to see you in here yeah perfect it's the fact that they haven't reported if you look at what the main so the conclusion is therefore it's safe to proceed the main premise they're looking is but as they're quick to retort the countries using the technique have not reported any groundwater contamination well kind of our man versus dock here is is the fact that they haven't reported any issues the same thing is saying they haven't had any issues right because what we're really assuming here is okay they haven't reported any so it must be safe therefore it is safe well is reported the same thing as had right and so if you know what that gap is right if everybody's seen that and I see some some answer choices coming in now look at what you're looking for you've got a shopping list your jeans in my case is I'm looking for a reported isn't the same thing as had its weekends you want to show why might they have had problems but not reported them if you look at you know a B you can kind of scan through them and just sort of say and that doesn't really deal with that if you look at the only one that even includes the word report is answer choice C and if your engine on that as hey reported is not the same thing as had just because they didn't report it doesn't mean it's safe when you scan through C is where you really want to spend some time because it includes what's on your shopping list if you're read through that the country's currently using that technique are so dependent on oil revenue that they're unlikely to report any issues well there you go there's a situation where they may have had the issues but not reported it the fact that they haven't reported it isn't good enough evidence to make such a critical decision on and the answer C now it's always interesting when I get to some of these in classes is people want to talk about other answer choices and I submit I'm kind of guilty because I do strengthen a weekend this way I haven't read these answer choices because like I said I'm not trying on cargoes if I want jeans scarves if I want a polo shirt I'm just looking for okay I know what the gap is let me get through a doesn't seem to talk about it B doesn't seem to talk about it these can be three to five second not eliminations but just cast aside like hey if I don't find what I'm looking for you know hey I have to wear it I've been learning shirts all summer and you know it's now it's going to be 30 degrees tomorrow I need long pants if I don't find jeans in my size then maybe I go back and try on some khakis but for right now if I can find exactly what I want I don't need to spend time trying on every answer choice I look at it and that's not what I'm looking for not what I'm looking for bang that's the one I want let me try it on make sure it really fits it is a weaken question this one says that reporting there's reasons that wouldn't report it even if they've had it so we're all set so that's the technique we want you to use this one people like to ask about you know degree of difficulty I think it's labor-intensive if you're doing it with you know a process of elimination and it'll take some time this probably this isn't the hardest one in the deck so we're gonna do a couple other hard ones but what I really want to make sure you're you know you're on board with and actually I just realized I had put together a slide where the argument was a little bit bigger but we're set there we want you to focus on is really the arguments in all of these we're gonna spend very little time on answer choices today a lot of time on arguments and so we want you to talk about it is really understand okay what makes gaps right so what creates gaps you saw a man versus dog now we've seen reported vs. had in that case we've seen unemployment rate versus number unemployed a lot of times one other big thing you can look for is what makes things a little more specific when you're reading you know speed reading Yuri and I you know if you had everybody's ever taken like a political science or pre-law class you know those dense textual anything you read for college you're not reading a lot of adjectives adverbs and modifiers right even sentence correction you want to shorten the sentence don't read a lot of bad adjectives modifiers unless it's a modifier error you want to try and streamline it with critical reasoning the Devils in the details what makes things the mark a little bit are things like number unemployed and unemployment rate if you didn't see rate next to unemployment you made sound unemployment unemployment those are generally the same thing you want to look for specifics so anytime there's extra or unique words around the conclusion like this first one comes from an official problem I've tutored a lot company X will have to reduce its manufacturing costs where does your mind go there where's there likely to be a gap if that's the conclusion what word is likely to create the gap somewhere in the premises this has always been a little bit of a litmus test for me that if students latch onto the same word I do here I know they get it and if they don't then you know we really need to work on it so we've got Laura mentions manufacturing I don't know if anyone else agrees that's the one I go for here okay wait a second why does it have to be manufacturing cost why can't they reduce their raw materials costs or their employee health care costs or marketing costs or financing costs why does it have to be manufacturing so if you read this one and say company X has to cut costs you're missing a key word Manufacturing makes it a really specific kind of cost so one rule I have with tutoring students to clear this guy in serrano who's gotten really good at it as mentioned like this is what works is if there's extra language in the conclusion you better read it and you have to tell me why it's there never paraphrase or summarize of conclusion because that's where that detail is especially if it's in the conclusion if they add an extra detail there's a reason they did it with the network's overall profitability would be greater if it replaced this increasingly expensive show this is another one from a good official problem and I'll throw out if you guys have thoughts on what word there might you fixate on it's a little more subtle and probably easier to see in context of the whole thing but I might look at overall profitability right okay overall profitability well what if there's a problem with this one show but overall it creates to a bigger okay overall profitability instead of they're talking about one show here and there let's go over all they're kind of fixating on those kind of things why did they put an adjective there it's a that official one I'll give you kind of a heads up that that's one there let's do this third one here it is thus surprising that raisins contain more iron per calorie than do grapes what's that extra language in that one that if you're paraphrasing or summarizing you might not see but if you're doing this on test day and that's the conclusions you nervous it's thus surprising it's kind of the part of the paradox you know that's where you really want to attack in it so good point I think totally mentioned the surprising that really kind of tells you the fact that it's a paradox kind of a problem you'll get used to those when there's two surprising fact not a premise and a conclusion so it's important but it's not the one I'm talking about there if you were to summarize this what's kind of the layman's way somebody to walk away with hey what's the difference between raisins and grapes the person who's not trained in this goes oh yeah one has more iron than the other the person who knows what they're doing says adjectives and modifiers that we've got in there our extras they look at that and they go per calorie that's going to be really important because you can have more iron less iron reference it's all dependent on the calorie it's kind of like that unemployment rate anytime they give you a rate and not an exact number more irons that the lazy kind of summary higher calorie is really critical here I mean this last one this one's true to you know near and dear to my heart because my my goddaughter ally just became the the class president ethic for a classroom that sort of the whole school but you know it's just fifth grades a big accomplishment ally received the greatest number of votes in the election so she will become the new class president so I know where Laura is going with this one the greatest number of votes one flaw and this one might be hate is getting the biggest number of votes mean that you actually win the election right we've got a few cases in recent world history where that wasn't necessarily the case not sure how people feel about that but that's not what we're talking about today so that's one there's another one here kind of a too awesome I love that one there but two that people tend to hate on this one and this is where you know we can talk about how does the GMAT make this stuff hard versus moderate versus whatever but sumo people get is does the greatest number of votes mean that you end up winning the election the other one then is what if they were running for something else right Laura awesome what does she was running for secretary right greatest number of votes but what if you vote for a Secretary of Treasury or president a vice president and it's like a presidential race was close she blew him off for secretary so that's another keyword the one I love on this one those are the ones people tend to spot so those you threw out that's awesome the one that people don't seem to get as much is new right and if you're really kind of attacking some of these you know an easier question will say you know hey greatest number of votes doesn't mean you win right electoral college exactly or hey maybe it was for a different office become the new president instead of you know got the most votes won the election new is huge because what if she was the incumbent right what if she's not the new class president she remains the class president because she won re-election but that new is in other words all those kind of extra words and so these are places to look this is an 8 did you get them right or wrong it's a little bit more of where do you look how do they create gaps very often it's they add an extra word somewhere and so kind of you know the quick summary of that statement is allocation she got the greatest number of votes and therefore won but what about what did she win did she win the presidency did she win become the new class president it's those extra details that's how they create gaps oops oh awesome exercise thanks everybody for for chiming in on those and so if you're recognizing that kind of the takeaway from this slide is you want to read critically take note of extra words I've always thought about favor your watches Curb Your Enthusiasm but Larry David would be awesome if these because he questions pretty much every extra word why did you say that you know and I'll get into every episode if you guys are fans you'll kind of notice it's that was it why'd you say new class president or well why do that per calorie there what calories have to do it if it's a bond iron it's those little details that people will pick up on that that ends up being the biggest case so let's do now at least one probably two more problems here before we wrap up again what I want you guys to do if you look at the question stem first which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument realized assumption questions technically are strengthened questions because the assumptions of missing premise but if you read them as weekend questions you get really critical a lot of times I'll show you the the right the right answer is it's not like it's exciting because it isn't easy to overlook assumption it may not jump up at you what you really want to do is you read critically and find the gap I'm gonna do this because this slides a little bit small I don't care as much about the answer choices let me give you guys the the stimulus here we know we're looking for a gap now again 45 seconds if you guys can find me the gap I'll show you there's only one answer choice it's even really worth spending a lot of time on so let's do that let's see if we can find that gap here all right so who thinks they found a gap here if we kind of I'll summarize a little what's the conclusion right so we've got so it's kind of conclusion language here so kinda means therefore something like that so intensive supervision is no more effective than a routine supervision if your pay attention on that last slide you're gonna recognize don't stop there right it's intensive supervision is no more effective than we've seen supervision well just like per calorie is a participle or sorry yeah prepositional modifier which you don't need to know the terms for but preposition per in of it is hey wait a second in sets up a modifier and so let's look at what is the full conclusion is intensive supervision is no more effective than routine in preventing criminals from committing additional crimes I'm gonna say this is a man versus dog one and so if this is same man as the conclusion committing additional crimes that's the basis we're trying to evaluate these two programs on what's the fact about anybody see that and say yeah that's not exactly the same thing well this one is a little bit tougher if you mentioned man versus dogs probably the obvious one that they get these gaps a little bit narrower one of the things that's okay cool we got some company awesome Jason I think just nailed it succinctly there's some other good answers in there as well arrested versus preventing crimes right we have crimes community here committing additional crimes is part of the conclusion well what's the statistic about it's the percentage of released criminals arrested and those two things aren't the same thing right this is where they're trying to pass true things off is exactly the same thing but we know that they're not right so this is the gap I'm looking for there's also we have percentage here but wrecking that those going for percentage versus actual number which is great because we talked about that they actually don't really have another number here anywhere else so we've got a percentage but the conclusion doesn't mention a number so we don't quite get that disconnect of a one's about a percentage one's about a number right so if you were to saying actually for something like this you probably want percentage in each of these cases because you'd want it to be on a percentage basis in case the sample sizes were different if intensive supervision was more expensive so you only intensely surveilled a hundred but routine you know all the rest you know did that or something like that so that's the gap we're looking for here is a man versus dog it's arrested versus committing crimes those two things are related but I'm here to tell you I shouldn't say this is gonna be recorded but I'll be honest with you guys I I got driving early to work I was on the road by 6:05 today you know it's kind of boring and I'm sitting in traffic I was on my phone quite a bit to be honest checking email it's kind of get in my head ready for the day sending one text cuz I was running late to an office that somebody needed my key to get into and all that that's illegal I committed a few crimes this morning I did not get arrested they are not they're not the same thing I'm here to you know I'm the positive decided to say that's right now you can also be arrested without committing a crime that's sad for me Scott law evades justice I'm happy with that they're not exactly the same thing and that's what's important if you reckon that gap then if we go to the answer choices and you say wait a second if their statistic is about arrested but what if some people committed a crime and didn't get arrested right gonna take that a little bit further well then look at the answer choices there's only one that talks about arrests and crimes committed and it's again answer choice C don't you guys to get the lesson that C is always right just happen to be on these last two arrests versus crimes committed if you look at this the only one that puts them in the same place is answer choice C now it's an assumption question so a couple things here one if I'm running short on time if I know hey I struggle with pacing on the verbal section I'm pretty confident ooh my shopping list I knew that was the the clever wordplay that was gonna be the difference between right and wrong and so what I want to do is they that's gonna be it the right answer kind of has to be a rest versus crimes committed I might stop you I might say you know what I pacing gents tends to be kind of bad I can be done 45 seconds of analyzing 20 seconds of scanning that's the only one I'm pretty happy there I'll save some time in case I get one more reading comp acid or something like that or I'll look at it and say I've got the time I really want to dig in it's an assumption I want to make sure that if this weren't true then the you know the argument would crumble and you can do that if you were to say that answer choice C were not true right because if an assumption is required then the absence of that assumption the opposite of it would mean that the argument doesn't hold and that's what we call the assumption negation technique just worth practicing if you google you'll find some other exercises and things on it we got pressed up proportion of arrests or crimes committed instead of was not significantly higher was significantly higher under intensive well that means if you committed a crime under intensive you got arrested if you did if you committed it under routine you might not have get arrested and so that shows you that hey the arrests versus arrests number is not apples to apples right and so if you recognize that now you know that if that's not true it cripples the argument shows that the the premise doesn't match up with the conclusion and so in that case C also has to be right so this kind of a technique if you're running short on time if you know the verbal section is hard to finish on time if only one answer choice even has what's on your shopping list right if I kind of like hey I'm looking for Virginia I'm going home I'm passing the mall I'm gonna stop in I probably use a new pair I don't need to wear these tomorrow or whatever I'll grab this this is a pair of jeans in my size I'll grab it you can always return it or whatever then that but if I if I you know if I have more time and I realized it's really important I'll try it on same kind of thing here this is the only one that's in your size that matches you might as well pick it if you know you're running short on time if you have the time you're late in the test and you know you have a time then really dig in and attack that one right so good question the last is if we negate it does that mean that intensive is less effective than a routine I think so the other one I look at is it just says like it basically says that if the proportion of arrests of crimes committed was significantly higher under intensive yeah if you follow it all the way through that means that most people you know a lot higher percentage of people who committed crimes under 1 were arrested than under the other and so really I would just look and say it shows that it's imbalance that you can't look at the arrest number because one is big higher than one percentage of arrests is way higher than the other and so it's just not a good comparison metric so you can throw it out for that or you can follow the logic all the way through so exactly yeah we just know they're not equal and so the one premise we have to try to arrive at this conclusion just isn't an applicable premise so awesome awesome let's um what's attack one more and this one is going to be pretty simple do two more problems together this one is is pretty similar or actually it's pretty similar it's the one we saw all the way at the beginning again it's an assumption problem I throw these out mainly because they tend to be the hardest for people but if you add this technique because they require a lot of real analysis on the answer choice and you guys have you been studying you're probably seen that so I like showing okay you've got a pretty nice leg up on these if you just know what you're looking for let's again go about 45 seconds I'm going to pop up the stimulus a little bit more again I'm really interested in can you find the gap on this one once we do we'll go back to the answer choices and show how this technique works in practice we do one more exercise and we got you know kind of pushing the little bit of a time we told you guys we'll do this one more exercise and summarize them and take questions so 45 seconds find that gap in logic for me now one step we may want to take on this one for us gotta realize this as I was walking away you know we do this in one of our first lessons what's a what what sentence would you guys say is the conclusion cuz this one actually gets pretty difficult that big if you don't identify the proper conclusion so let's let's make sure that we're next to those who are finding gaps I I think is it's pretty awesome so it's and you guys are right right on it you know Loras is it acceptable translation equals accurate I think it's perfect here's where okay if people are saying the last sentences the conclusion one other thing I it's kind of unplanned then I realize you kind of do want to do this on I just love the gap on this problem but let's talk about the correct there the doesn't correct answer the correct conclusion must have an answer why call it the why test if it's just given as a fact if you can't find anything else in the stimulus that tells you why that's true then it can't be the conclusion and so here if we look at no newspaper can fairly be blamed if it's reporting is accurate did they give you a reason why anywhere now say you won't find one anywhere but if you look at the right conclusion here those consequences will not be our fault however since officials have confirmed that our translation was accurate right so this sense right here it tries to explain those consequences will not be our fault and so the right conclusion and this one is is important right now we're kind of we're breaking out the gap and this will also be pretty important for that but when you're trying to attack any of these one of the single most common mistakes by terrible way of phrasing and the most common mistake you see beginners make on strengthen weaken questions is they miss the conclusion either they miss a keyword like manufacturing a manufacturing costs are per calorie in iron per calorie or new and new president like we talked about or they just pick the wrong sentence and the GMAT is really good it being able to show you the last sentence reads like a conclusion but they don't try to give you a reason why it's more of a principle so if you take it as hey this journalistic principle is you cannot be blamed for the consequences if your reporting is accurate well that's a reason to believe that the consequences won't be our fault and so that's the conclusion keep in mind if you're ever struggling to find the conclusion or unsure hold it up to the why test and some of these may look like conclusions but they're just given as a factor as a principle and so attack that a lot of you guys not showing me that the acceptable translation is the problem they've confirmed that the translation is acceptable right but what does the principal say you can't be blamed if your reporting is accurate well so the gap we have going on here is the translations accurate but does that mean that we can get by on as principal that the reporting is accurate those two things aren't the same it's a well-hidden man versus dog or arrests versus crimes committed it's one of those you know situations if you're reading just scanning you're not gonna pick up on that if you're hunting for okay this is the conclusion the consequences won't be our fault well why is that hey they said our translation was good and this principal says that we can't be blamed it's not our fault if the reporting is good hey wait a second those two things aren't exactly the same if you identify these two portions here that no newspaper and since officials I'll put a 1 here and a 2 here those are the two facts that lead to this conclusion and they're trying to pass off two things that aren't the same if you recognize that is everybody on board let me see that gap now that I pointed out it takes some practice but once you start to you know to notice these gaps over and over again then you're in great shape because if that's on your your shopping list well let's just go to the answer choices can you guys find and answer choice and we get rid of this just so doesn't cover one of the choices here which answer choice puts comrade translation and reporting together Fossum answer choice a right if you're if you know what you're looking for you see it and you know it's right right Lori and it actually hit it once you see once you know that gap and you see it you're great and then again if we want to say okay it's an assumption so what would happen if it weren't there the confirmation that the translation is acceptable is not sufficient to show that the Prime Minister's remarks were accurately reported well again it's not it's not enough we need to we need to further bridge that gap so if this assumptions not here then the argument falls apart because we can't connect those dots we don't have anything connecting man and dog and so the answer has to be a now I would say this one I've watched people spend a lot of time going through all these dense answer choices there's a lot of negation in these and things like that and it becomes tricky if you know what you're looking for it's a pretty quick shopping spree through the answer choices upon 80% of the time like I said sometimes you're gonna have to go back but more often than not those those minutes you save by being really quick on you know six or seven critical reasoning questions and then the other two or three you know you you've got a little bit more time to attack on or on sentence correction or reading comprehension you're much more accurate much more efficient you spend less time and like the title of this session says I think you enjoy it more because you know you're you're really attacking you're not just hoping to find it you know a needle in a haystack and the answer choices you know what you're looking for you're on a mission so with that I want to show actually I will get through one more and this one I want to give you guys about two minutes to do I want to show you guys is the problem with Peoria's process of elimination it's no problem with Edgar Allen Poe and with the idea of the otoscope but it's not one of the slides earlier one of the dangerous things I see people do when they're doing a lot of process of elimination is they just start eliminating things going out of scope it's not it's that its life you know what you're looking for you really understand what the scope is generally speaking people that use the phrase out of scope too often don't really know what the scope is and so I'll show you what I mean by that in just a second why it's so important to know what's on your shopping list and to go get it so let's let's go another to a minute and a half or so on this one we'll finish this one up one more cool takeaway here and then we'll wrap up all right so how's everybody doing here we've got oh I like I like the the honesty with Laura that's perfect they sometimes you have to go through that this may be for some of you the one of the answer choices or one of the questions where you don't see what you're looking for the first time you don't find that gap right away we've got got some sieves and ease on this one which is great because yeah I mean I miss this one actually you do have to do a little bit of comparing answer choices so perfect I would look at this one if we just look straight at the argument what's interesting here is you see we're sure we're supposed to close and say come back here we want to strongly weaken the city officials response right and somebody give us a little bit more real estate here so the city official if you look at what he says you overlook the fact and where we have in facts right he's just giving two facts so really what the conclusion is that he's saying is hey citizen you're wrong so he's trying to reply if the citizens conclusion is a decreasing ability of law enforcement to prevent violent crime basically saying you're not doing a good job of preventing violent crime the city officials saying no we are doing a good job of that here are the facts that support it so it's kind of an implicit conclusion here you summarized what the city officials trying to respond to and that happens sometimes when they have it's two people talking he's saying now we're doing a decent job of preventing violent crime the city's population has risen in fact the number of murder victims per 100 people has fallen right so I would look at this one say his conclusion is we're trying to prove we're doing a good job preventing violent crime his major premise is the murder rate the murders per 100 people the murder rate is down people see that now that you've seen it I could set you up a little bit better what is the conclusion because it's a unique one where it's kind of an implicit conclusion here but if you recognize hey wait a second your conclusions about preventing violent crime that's why you're attacking this guy he's saying you're not doing a good job preventing violent crime you come back and say populations risen and the murder rate is down so then if you look at way murder and violent crime exactly and that's that's one gap I've seen people do it different ways and kind of say actually if you do it but if you focus on that one time lurid mention I think if you just see the gap for purposes of right now is he's trying to make a conclusion about violent crime he's picking one type of violent crime well I wouldn't say a murder rate isn't exactly violent crime right anytime somebody cherry-picks a statistic like that you know if you were to say hey is this a great product for me and somebody says yes actually it's it has the the best warranty it's like okay with the warranties now the best thing about it right if you go you know go into a store and your car dealership or something like that whatever its statistic they cherry-pick you know its best in its class in you know the heating and cooling system you go okay that's the one thing you have going for you start asking about the others here violent crime is one big umbrella he starts talking about murder rate what does that probably tell you that the other rates aren't as good he's going to cherry-pick as best one well if violent crime and murder rate are not the same thing then you want to look for reasons hey how could violent crime be up but the murder rate be down right so if everybody's on board with that one is a nice gap that will get you the answer here let as you go through the answer choices now what's interesting enough you people said see what's interesting if you unpack see actually is murders and other violent crimes are more likely to be reported now than they were in 1970 if it's more likely to be reported now you'd actually think yet strength is it's like hey the rates down even though you would expect it to be up you know if 50 years ago people were getting killed then just nobody was ever tracking it so the statistic should have been higher than it was but it wasn't now you think it would be higher but it's actually down see strengthen it did it helps them out what's interesting with the kind of at one point I want to make with with just pure process of elimination and out of scope if you don't understand the argument to know what you're going for a lot of people will eliminate e right around here if the health care receipt rather go I don't want to talk about health care I don't want to talk about health care it's that's out of scope the danger is if you're just scanning for repetition and recognition it's amazing how quickly people eliminate answer choices two words in three words in five words in one thing we like to always tell students is at least read past the comma right if the health care received by assault victims last year had been of the same quality was in 1970 I don't know I don't know we're gonna the murder rate would have turned out to be several times what it already was well then look at that that just he'd the one piece of evidence he has it goes yeah it's not that the murder rate you know the the Violent Crimes down is just people aren't dying violent crime is up they're just not dying because we're saving them they're not dying it doesn't count as murder it counts as aggravated assault or something like that the danger is if you're just using pure process of elimination and you don't really understand what you're looking for well then you're not necessarily going to be patient enough to what to you know to wait for the good stuff and so one things like the test makers phrase we use a lotta veritas prep think like the test maker what do they do on a lot of these answers it's like a curve ball they have it where it looks out of scope out of scope out of scope out of scope and then pass the collar toward the end it drops in if you know what you're looking for it now I need a reason that Merck the murder rate is the only good statistic that works for him but the rest of violent crime is actually up if you're waiting for that you have a little bit of that patient you're kind of scanning the whole answer you're not making a yes/no process of elimination you've got a shopping list you know what you're looking for and so that's where you may be more available for something like e where as you know a lot of people will do their first passes process of elimination no I just go up no I'll keep it I'll keep it and go down people are pretty bad when it to now over say some people you know they're 50% 60% you can be really good if you know what you're looking for when people fall back on a heavy process of elimination they miss a lot of stuff like this because they scan the argument and then you know try to you know judge answer choices just kind of based on faulty understanding oh so that's the real lesson here I just love this one it takes a whole line here to really get words going if you know what's on your list you know it's sort of like that's overdue I'm totally over doing the analogy but it works is that with the gap it's like if you know you need dark jeans standard cut in a you know size you know whatever even if you know it's not in the box words supposed to be well you know what you're looking for you may go below and go cows looking for a 33 waist but let me see if the 33 weeks got tucked under maybe the 34 so 35 you know what you're looking for you're gonna go find it as opposed to you know if you're scanning the whole store you have to be a little bit more judicious if you know what you're looking for you can kind of just keep reading until you find what you want but you're not spending a lot of time trying on every answer choice it gives you the time to be able to do this well so the answer here is he want to wrap up a little bit and talk about what should you look for on these so we talked the biggest thing is finding the gap right identify the conclusion find the gap we talked a lot about word play word play was man versus dog it was arrest versus crimes committed was a reported vs. had some of those things those are pretty big and so workplace probably the biggest one I wanted to really train yourself it's where those extra work and manufacturing cost those kind of things will come into play also be aware of correlation versus causation just because these two things happen doesn't mean one caused the other so anytime you have two things that you know are known to occur together if they try to make a conclusion that one caused the other that could be a gap you want to look for hey why can't it be the other way around why instead of you know heart disease causing kidney failure why can't it be the kidney failure causes heart disease something like that to get more of it on that but you know look for it could it be the other way around all we know is that people who have one tend to have the other why can't why no why can't it be the opposite of the conclusions look for that generalization is where they make one you have one data point that because you know this book didn't sell well we shouldn't market anything from this author or something like that worth everything it's only on one data point if it's strengthened you want that data point to be indicative of the whole if it's weakened you want it to be an outlier anytime the major premise the the main fact they're using is one data point or two data points you want to look at hey the gap is we don't have all the data if it's strengthened this is representative if it's weakened its the outlier you want to look for that and then just like we saw with unemployment rate versus number unemployed things like number versus percentage when there's statistics make sure one that the type of statistic percent arrested versus a conclusion about crimes committed or that you know one of the kind of oldest tricks in the book they'll use sometimes is something like more people die each year taking selfies than swimming with great white sharks and so would you say that it's more dangerous to take a selfie than to swim with sharks well I hate to say it but everybody takes selfies myself included sometimes I don't have a stick but I'll take them but nobody swims with great white sharks very few people swim in shark-infested waters how many you know what percentage people even swim in the ocean every year way it's unweighted pools it's not an even sample you want to look for things like dalek hey is it the right kind of statistical comparison if you're looking for these types of flaws heavily on wordplay and then aware of the others and kind of you know screenshot this be ready for it as you do some practice with it the more you train yourself as you see an argument going I see that gap I know what's going on you're gonna be really quick the right answers jump off the screen at you with a little bit of practice and so know what the major gaps are and and train yourself to recognize them then you're not doing process of elimination kind of hoping and answer it presents it to yourself you've got a shopping you know what you're going for and so with that it's kind of wrap up where we're going again hooah to overdo the gap thing most critical reasoning is strength the weekend which means most of its not process elimination if you know if you have to fall back on it's not the fastest of nations wrong it will always lead you astray you're just more efficient more accurate and you know you feel a lot more confident with it if you can master the idea of find the gap know what you're looking for go get it before they they sell you something you don't want and so with that let's say I don't know the previous slide let's let's wrap up we've got reps from not from Veritas prep if anybody's interested in and taking some classes with us you know email we can give you know offer codes it some $100 off live courses or we got a new self-study program that that we're pretty you know I wasn't proud of its kind of like now we're just excited about we've got some great score type things with it so if if five this is beneficial to you Joe if it was I think it was and you want some more you know we'll do handful more these kind of sessions but a lot of the gold is behind the paywall there with with that said any quick questions that can answer let's try to keep it all two critical reasoning so that when this video lives on YouTube forever it's all pretty thematic but any critical reasoning questions that can answer for you guys and thanks nobody for all the participation this is it's fun it's it's it comes with practice kind of breaking apart gaps and you know and kind of having that chopped if you've been doing a lot of process elimination it might be a little bit new of a style for you but if you give it time like I said I've got a student hated critical reasoning you know three four weeks ago loves it now he's saying that's generalization you might say that's one you know he's just the most recent of a lot of students when people learn to do it proactively you know just it feels better you're more confident and you're more just more accurate so awesome Laura just asked really great question how would you identify recommend identify when you get those what best completes the passage so the question stem will be best completes the passage and then you get you know a bunch of tacks bunch of texts a bunch of text and then an underline and they don't really tell you a question something they'll say strengthen the argument weaken the argument it's there what you want to do is read right before the underline if they say something like because or since it's a strengthen or weaken because you're giving a reason to do something if they say something like therefore or it follows that then you know you're drawing a little bit of a conclusion so generally speaking just go right before the underline sometimes you can see in one word if it's because or a sense if not read the whole sentence that includes the underline you just think to yourself what is the role of this missing portion is this missing portion a conclusion if so then then it's an inference questions or is it a reason then it's a strength in a week and like we talked about today you kind of want to treat strengthen weaken the same the other nice one to have that answered it is they know two methods that way it's just it's really hard to have that fit in a blank there so really all you're asking yourself is is that underlined portion is it a reason to believe a conclusion or is it a conclusion itself it's a reason to believe strengthen weaken and if not its inference oh yeah awesome great question thank you all right we're going to wrap up here actually I don't know if the chat box is still open I'll stop just taking logistical type things but shoot us an email you know giant veritas prop cop there's anything that you missed that's that you want to ask about a little bit but units in the in the nature keeping a pretty succinct video since this will last forever this link will work if you enjoyed it and have a you know roommate or colleague or friend somebody that might benefit from it let them know so thank you guys for all your time hope see you guys in a classroom soon or you know another one of these pretty soon as well so thanks everybody

10 thoughts on “Free Webinar: How to Go from Hating to LOVING Critical Reasoning”

  1. maybe ill get lucky with an answer before i take my test in 5.5 hours….. would it make sense to write anything down about the question similar to a quant problem; or would that be wasting time?…… ex. if a question is asking as this goes up as this goes down look for….. writing down x"arrow up", y "arrow down" ..? to look back at later for quicker reference?

Leave a Reply

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