GRE Verbal – Logical Thinking and Critical Reasoning || Recommended



good evening I see a lot of you are very interested in logical thinking a critical reasoning and manage all the rest for your exam tomorrow I hope this session will be helpful to you do okay basically logical thinking and critical reasoning not only in GRE they are very helpful in most of the exams including GMAT cat LSAT anyway okay but this session will pertain to GRE but you can take away pointers from here for any other example even for bank exams that you write in India okay so all the GRE critical reasoning questions appear like IC questions that is the best thing will be following a passage a small passage will be given and a question will be asked but it will be only one question for which you have to select one out of the five options they they are mostly fictitious mostly imaginary people places things numbers everything will be patients so you need not pay much attention to what is said you must pay attention to how it is said and what it tests the critical reasoning is your logical reasoning skills so there are two parts analytical parts and logical parts you are going to exert your logical reasoning part of your brain here rather than the reading comprehension as you do in the rest of the GRE verbal section but if you are good at want you can be sure that you will be very good at verbal as long as you understand all the words given in the critical reasoning person okay so let's jump into a sample critical reasoning question this is how a given investment will be provided first there will be a passage a small passage about some random mosquito type some data will be given some information will be provided and a conclusion will be drawn and then there will be a question and the person will ask you to direct you in some way say strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage or weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage something like that and then there will be five options out of which we'll have to select one that is apt for the given prompt so let's split it into three parts the argument part the prompt part and the choices the argument is the given information it might be data conclusion or some assumptions it will all be imaginary stuff and the prompt is the actual question what you have to do with that question with the passage so the prompt will ask you to strengthen the judgment made in the passage or weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage ask you to find what assumption underlies in the passage things like that and there will be five options out of which we'll have to select one remember one out of five options in the GRE so in understanding a critical reasoning question type there are several basic concepts that you have to understand first let's look into them one by one this is where I mean this is what I said about the things that will be applicable for all exams basically critical reasoning persons they test your logical reasoning and in whatever way your logical reasoning is tested one of these things will be applied okay so data data is basically the numbers or figures provided in the question a one out of ten stores have I found this observation something like that so any kind of data provided in the argument serves as a supporting information for the conclusion drawn so you'll have to make sure that you know the data and what it does next a proposition a proposition is basically a statement put forward in order to strengthen or weaken a previously stated statement so a proposition is could be moving forward a point that has been stated earlier or it could argue against a statement stated earlier so understanding how each part the argument works we'll help you understand what you have to do in that question premised it is very similar to data it is basically the information provided and unlike data this will be more a story kind it will be sentences like the setting of the argument say in a store in some place something happens this will be optimized we'll we'll look into the questions later in the session and understand what role each part of the quest in place so an unstated premise or assumption it is one step further from Timaeus a premises stated openly that is this is thought to happen in this scenario it's what demise will say but an unstated premise will take one step further it will miss a step a premise or an assumption will be not be stated to you it will be hidden in the information provided in the passage so a passage may say a is equal to B and then it will say B is equal to D then you'll have to understand that a is equal to D at some part and that is the assumption provided way so when capacity a say is equal to B and a co2 B you have to understand that B is equal to D is assume some detail something like that but in words missing information is different from assumption while assumption is a premise that is not stated missing information is some data that is missing some information that is missing in order to arrive at the conclusion so we'll see the difference between these two D circle difference between assumption and missing information well you go out to the questions conclusion this is the crucial part of any logical reasoning critical reasoning question so a conclusion is basically the end statement and when I say in statement you need not get confused because in some critical reasoning questions the very first line of the question will be a conclusion a conclusion will be drawn and then data and premise will be provided in order to support it so it is crucial that you understand what the argument is driving at it is to feel that you understand what is the main part of the argument so that will be a conclusion and mostly your question will be dependent dependent on this conclusion it will ask you to strengthen this conclusion reaching this conclusion or ask you to find the assumption that is made in arriving at the conclusion and stuff so it is crucial that you understand the conclusion as well as you read the argument fallacy is basically a Fault in logical reasoning so there are several logical fallacies that you find in everyday life in politics in social scenarios everywhere so a fallacy is basically a logical leap or a logical fault that you make in concluding something so there are several fallacies one very common fallacy is a slippery slope you might have all taste this somewhere in your life say you're playing around in your school days or even your college days you would have heard your parents say if you keep playing like this you will fail in all the exams and you'll end up no way you won't get a job you will have to depend on us we don't want that so that is called a slippery slope I mean coming to conclusions coming to big conclusions based on one small step that is playing today so there are several such fallacies we make these fallacies a lot in our everyday conversations and stuff they are just logical leaps and you'll also find such fallacies in the critical reasoning questions you need not know what kind of fallacy it is as long as you understand that there is some logical point in the argument made ok so understanding which part of the passage place which role whether it's a data provided whether it's supreme eyes whether it's a conclusion drawn especially this one understanding the conclusion drawn in an argument will help you solve the question very easily ok then go into some questions and see how this works but before that in GRE there are these common types of critical reasoning questions just look at the person types either it will ask you to strengthen the conclusion weaken the conclusion and spot the assumption that is made in order to arrive at the conclusion what information will be needed to evaluate or validate the conclusion the implication implication is basically if you have gone through the reading comprehension path implication will be very similar to inference that is what can be inferred or what can be arrived at from the given information so we'll have to find an option that states the same thing same argument in other words something like that under step and say is just the opposite I hope you are all working on your vocabulary now so I hope you know what a discrepancy is a discrepancy is something that does not match say a student in your class does really well studies really well since the first bench that's a really studious job but fails in all the exams there is a discrepancy in his class behavior and his marks okay a discrepancy is some paradox that is an inequality between two things you expect something to happen from one thing but it does not happen that is a discrepancy okay so an argument might contain a discrepancy and you might have to come up with an option or choose an option that will resolve this discrepancy that will actually give a reason for why this paradox occurs in that argument now I want you to look at the example prompt part how those words are given in bold those must come out to you when you look at the question in order to understand what you have to do with the question so for a strengthening type question the question will be like which of the following would strengthen to give an argument and in a discrepancy question you might be asked which or the following if to best resolve the discrepancy about so the solving is solving basically so when the exercise depends you question you will have to come up with an option or choose an option that actually solves the paradox that is in the argument so once you understand these things your critical reasoning job will be very easy let's look at some questions and I'll show you how you have to spot each part of the argument how we have to understand each part and how to proceed about the question from their own so distinguishing between the critical reasoning question types whether it's a strengthening question whether it's a weaken interesting whether it's an assumption based question that is one thing and then following the right approach to solve the question is the next thing these are the only two things that you'll have to worry about when you come to critical reasoning questions in critical reasoning your vocabulary will not be tested much all you'll have to do is have some basic vocabulary to understand your argument and have a lot of logical thinking in order to arrive at the conclusion okay let's move on the first type strengthening question in this person it will basically ask you to strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage strengthen the argument that is put forth in the passage so what do you usually do when you want to strengthen an argument that you put forth say you want to say that this actors movie sucks the best argument that you will give is an example you will strengthen your argument with examples of all the movies that they like – right so in a strengthening question all you have to do is find points that are adding support like examples to the argument to the conclusion drawn in the westin the question stem will look like this which of the following improve most strengthens the argument which of the following if true would be additional evidence to suggest that conclusion above is correct so as you see here it obviously states additional evidence so any evidence or proof or example that will support your argument will strengthen the argument that's it let's look at an example person sales can be increased by the presence of sunlight within a store has been shown by the experience of the only safest department store with a large skylight so it's stopped here there is comfort called sail fast which is not necessary for you it is not a per calorie board as does the name of the department store so there is the only safe fast department store there is only one store of this kind where there is a large skylight okay and what is said about this store sales can be increased by the presence of sunlight within a store so this is obviously the conclusion drawn in this argument let's market a/c so sales can be increased by the presence of sunlight witnessed or this has been shown by the experience of the only safe pass department store with a large skylight next the skylight allows sunlight into half of the store reducing the need for artificial light so basically the Sun light lights up half the store this is a Primus it adds information it gives information about the store the rest of the store uses only artificial light okay wherever sunlight is not available artificial light is used since the store opened two years ago the apartments on the sunlit side have had substantially higher sales than the other departments so this part is a spot basically restates the first part that is sales can be increased by the presence of sunlight so since the store opened two years ago the departments on the sunlit side say there is the baby products department under be sunlit side the other departments are on the other side the artificially lit side so the wavy products have substantially higher sales than other departments so this is the proposition this adds strength to the argument given below given above the conclusion so basically the conclusion is that sales is high in the sunlit side that is it so sunlight helps sales this is the given argument let's look at the question which of the following is true most strengthens the argument so you have to strengthen the argument that sunlight helps sale that is it so look for options that give examples proves evidence for saying that sunlight helps sales okay optionally when you look at the options always eliminate options before they arrive at the conclusion so even option D a cool sound right to you till you have to look at B C D and E eliminate them all and then to see a divorce in GRE there are several questions where you might be tempted to choose one option and that might be the trap option it could be incorrect why is some other option that has a slight both Madhavan here to be the right answer so please be careful or by elimination now option a on a particular and particularly cloudy days more artificial light is used to eliminate part of the store under the skylight so this point just says that on cloudy days artificial light is used instead of sunlight this doesn't speak anything about sales but we are looking for a point that will say that sales increases by the presence of sunlight so option J can be eliminated it is completely irrelevant option B when a store is open at night the department in the part of the store under the skylight house sales that are no higher than those of other departments so what what is the conclusion we are looking for sunlight helps sales here it is night so there is no sunlight you can go ahead the departments in the part of the store under the skylight so under the skylight but there is no sunlight house sales that are no higher than the other departments so baby products will have no higher sales than other products which means they have equal or lower sales than other products this means that it is because of sunlight that baby products was selling high and when sunlight is not there the sale sales is equal to or lower than that in other departments so option B suggests that it is sunlight that helps sales so let's have it on hold let's look at the other options many customers purchase items from departments in both parts of the store on a single shopping trip again this option says customers buy from both or both parts of the shop but doesn't say anything to strengthen the fact that the argument that sunlight helps sales so options he can be eliminated besides the skylight there are several significant architectural differences between the two parts of the store so this point says that there are some other aspects that also differ between the two point two parts of the store not just the skylight if anything this option will be weakening the argument say if the skylight is the only difference between these two parts then you can say that is only reason for higher sales but when there are several other reasons your argument becomes invalid so option D weakens and not strengthens the given argument the department's in the part of the store under the skylight are the departments that generally have the highest sales in other stores of the safer stream now remember we saw the word only say first department store right so there is only they might be like 10 to 15 stores under this a past department store chain but there is only one store which has a large skylight so in this option it compares this tour with the other stores the departments in the part of the store under the skylight are the departments that generally have higher sales in other stores it is a first change so say baby products sell high in this safest chain where there is skylight and the products are lying under the skylight but when you say that it is baby products that sell high in all other say first chain drug stores then this again weakens the argument so if baby products is what says higher in all the places then probably it is not sunlight that is helping the sales here it is just the product that sells high so optionee is again a weakening argument not a strengthening ah so option D can be chosen as the item I hope this helped you understanding which part of the argument place what role is very important in our agency conclusion so when you know that the conclusion is sunlight helps sales you can eliminate two or three options very easily because there will be very irrelevant they do not even deal with sunlight or sales you can eliminate them the others might be tempting but understand what you are looking for you are looking for an option that adds evidence you support to the conclusion how can you explain why you have the option okay okay option leave the departments in a part of the store under the skylight say baby products are the products or the baby products department is the department under the skylight in this states a first department store are the departments that generally have the higher sales in other stores in the safe Bastien say there are two stores in safest in oneness a which has sunlight which are which is open to the skylight one is B which is completely a little bit artificial light okay so if baby products are the products that sell high in both the department stores then probably it is not sunlight that helps in the sales of the BV product it is just that the product itself is in demand right so our conclusion is that it is sunlight that helps in the higher sales sales can be increased by the presence of sunlight is what the argument says so if it is sunlight that helps sales human use probably have lower sales of baby products in other stores in safer steam but this is not suggested and option e option is that the departments of the part of the store under skylight are the departments that generally have higher sales in other stores of the say first chain is that clear so this means that the products that is that are under sunlight are the products that are selling high in all other stores which means that sunlight is not really helping option B option B basically you'll have to understand the conclusion the presence of sunlight helps sales is the conclusion there so when it is at night then there is no sunlight you obviously come to a conclusion that the products that are under the skylight when they do not have higher sales in the other department it strengthens the argument that it is sunlight that helps okay so either you can say that sunlight helps you can find evidence to say that sunlight helps in sales or you can find evidence that absence of sunlight that's not helping sales which means the same it is only sunlight that can help in sales option B does the second part that is the absence of sunlight sees a drop in sales which means Sun Lake is what else in sales that is why option B is writing hey that's more than expressed in a weekend type question this is just the opposite of strengthening a question you'll have to select an option that will weaken the conclusion drowning the passage the passage could also be like this from a poor speech a mayor says four years ago when they reorganized the City Police Department in order to save money critics claimed that reorganization would make the polis less responsive to citizens and would thus lead to more crime so whatever way organizationís maybe they are reorganizing the structure of the police department or reducing number increasing the number of police whatever it is so they do organization of the city bonus and critics say that reorganization would make polish less responsive to citizens so this part is crucial in this first sentence let's move to the next part so basically critics say that the organization would make policy responsible citizens and that would lead to more crime so there will be less response to citizens and increase in crime the polls have compiled theft statistics from the years following the reorganization that is in the last four years that show that the critics they're wrong so the mayor says that the critics we're wrong there was an overall decrease in reports of thefts of all kind including small thefts so this is the conclusion drawn by DeMaio so from the data given it was a conclusion that there is an overall decrease in reports of deaths of all kinds including small dips so the critics say that the organization would make police less responsive and by including please but the mayor says that there has been a decrease in report of thefts so he is very confident that every organization Excel now let's look at the question which of the following into more seriously challenges they may us argument so the mayor collects statistics and gives a conclusion that the depth has gone down a taste reports of theft has gone wrong now let's look at the options and see which one weakens this argument that the mayor's argument is weak when City police are perceived as respond unresponsive victims of there are less likely to import their tests to the police say you have a mobile phone and you lose it numbers Johnny if you know that police are not going to pay much attention to your case when you file an fi are that your mobile is lost would you take the pains to go and report the step that is what options a States then city police are perceived as unresponsive victims of theft are less likely to report deaths to the poorest so the critics main claim was that the police would become less responsive and trying should increase so if the police are perceived as unresponsive basically victims would not report the deaths and hence there will be a decrease in reporting thefts it is not that depth has reduced it is the reporting theft has reduced right so option a could beacon the mayor's argument the mayor's argument is that the critics they are drawn but the critics era actually right police are less responsive and crime has increased only the import of the crime has decreased option B the mayor's critics generally agree that police statistics concerning crime reports provide the most reliable available data on the crime rates so if this option is right then this actually strengthens the mayor's argument because the critics support they may have statistics which does not weaken the argument so option B can be eliminated option C in other cities their police departments have been similarly reorganized the number of reported tips have generally rising for a theory of a system so this argument this option C you'll have to make sure that you do not fall for such options this discusses something that is happening in other cities but it is the statement of the critics about this city that matters here okay so this is superfluous and irrelevant data you'll have to eliminate this in other cities they say police department have been similarly they organized the numbers of reported thefts have generally rise and following so in other cities it might have happened differently but critics wave hit anything about this city and it is only pertain to the city that you'll have to look at the option option D the mayor's reorganization of the police department failed to save as much money as it was introduced save the mayor's conclusion is that the critics were wrong the critics did not say anything about saving money so this has nothing to do nothing to do with the mayor's conclusion or argument option B can be eliminated option e during the four years immediately preceding the reorganisation please know this word it is proceeding not after or succeeding receiving video of nation reports of all types of theft had been rising steadily in comparison to reports of other crimes so if reports of thefts had been rising before these four years does it have anything to do with the argument provided they are provided is about the current four years the four years after reorganization whatever happened before those four years does not matter so option is again irrelevant it does not weaken the mere sentiment in any case so option yay it says that people when they think that police are unresponsive would naturally not report their death which does not mean that depth has condom it is only the report of if that has gone down and critics they're not actually wrong so this weakens the mayor's argument the critics say wrong critics are not actually wrong this could be another reason for why people did not report their tests so option ei weakens the mayor's argument I hope that's clear let's move to the next question assumption type question as we already saw assumption is a basic step that is missed in the logical reasoning given in the argument so basically you'll you'll be as to spot the assumption that is underlying in the given argument so which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends the conclusion is properly drawn if each of the following is assumed so you will know a question when it asks for your for assumption in that argument you'll have to look for unstated from ice which is crucial for the argument so for the argument to be valid you'll have to spot which sentence should be in the middle of that argument so you basically have to place that sentence in the argument and see which one fits let's look at example comparison of growth rings of ancient trees enables scientists to determine from a piece of timber the year in which the pre use for the timber was felled so you have a timber from say a table from an ancient building comparing the grow things of the timber will tell you in which year the tree was still say the tree was felled in 1930 okay from the grow thing you can identify that the tree was felled in say 1920 now hence by analyzing the growth rings in timber surviving from ancient buildings so you say pull down a pillar from an ancient building out and build up from an ancient building and analyze the grow things in the timber by analyzing the growth rings in timber serving from the ancient building archeologists can determine precisely when those buildings they constructed okay so there are three parts of this one is the tree being cut down second the building being built and third your analyzing the growth rings okay they these three are the three parts in this argument now which are the following is an assumption on which the argument depends the argument the conclusion drawn is this obviously when it starts with hence you can understand that this is the conclusion drawn so when you can use the growth rings to identify when Dupree was 12 you can naturally identify when the building was built using the growth rings okay this is the argument now look at the options and see which one is the assumption that is underlying in this contribution the timber used for construction purposes in ancient times was made from very old trees so whether the tree was old or new doesn't matter because you can anyway identify when it was fell so option D a can be eliminated it is not an assumption it does not help in drawing the conclusion in any way the grow things off in Italy felled in a given year are identical to the growth rings of any other tree felled in that year so it cannot be to say a tree was 10 years old for one tree and another tree that was felled in the same way was 50 years old doesn't mean the whole things would be similar so this doesn't make sense option B again that's not at the second act as an assumption lying before the conclusion option B can be eliminated the oldest of the ancient buildings that survived to the present day they constructed of the most durable woods the durability of the woods again doesn't matter in engine in the given argument so option c can be related ancient builders did not use more than one type of hole for the construction of a given building so does the type of four type of wood used in the building play any role in this argument the argument just says that you can identify the grow things using the timber and identify when it was felled and thereby I defined when it was concept so how many ever types of boots you you had used you can get the growth ring data from all the timbers and you can still find when it was Bell option D still doesn't act as an assumption in aromatic inclusion option e the timber that was used in ancient by the construction had not prior to being used in the construction of the building lane unused for an indeterminate amount of time so say the tree was felled in 1920 or tape or an oak tree was felled in 1920 and the building was built in 1940 okay so from the first sentence of the argument you can understand that from the grow thing you can understand you can identify when the tree was there the conclusion states that using these growth rings you can identify when the building was built okay so obviously these two data will clash you would consider that the building was built in 1920 but actually it was built in 1940 because the tree had Lyme Lane unused for 20 years this is what option G says but the author has assumed in saying that the grow things can be useful in identifying the age of the building that the tree where as soon as it was felled was used for building construction so in the same year that wood was fell that is cut down it was used for building construction that is what the author has assuming option he states the same thing the timber that was used in the ancient building construction had not prior to being used in the construction of buildings so before being used in the construction of the building it was not say left hand a garage kept in safe storage for an independent indeterminable amount of time so for 20 years if it did not lay unused even for one year if it had not lain in use then this conclusion will be right so the assumption is that the building was built on the very year that degree was condemned so option E is actually the assumption that lies between this first part of the sentence and the conclusion okay so this is how the assumption questing' works whatever the author has assumed in Harare and the conclusion you have the squatter now missing information question is very similar okay let me go back I have a dressing on option Yee let me just split it straight down option he into several parts the timber that was used in ancient building construction had not okay so they the building that was buried in 1940 okay the timber the COS used in 1940 had not prior to being used in the construction of the building so prior to 1940 lake unused for an indeterminable amount of time so the tree was cut down in 1920 the option he simply states that the wood did not lay life unused for 20 years okay so the tree was cut only 1950 the building was between 1940 but the conclusion when it says the growth rings can help in understanding when the building was built instead of when the tree was cut down you can understand that the author assumes that the tree was used as soon as it was cut down in the same year so the first part of the argument says you can identify when it was cut down the second part in the argument says you can identify when it was when the building was built so there is a gap between these two things a tree need not be cut down and used for building in the same year but the author assumes that if the tree was used as soon as it was cut down in the building then the growth ring can help in identifying the age of the building okay so when the author says it can determine I mean it can help determine precisely when the building was constructed he assumes that the building was constructed as soon as the pre-wash turn the dream was used at once why not be the growth rings of any prefilled in a given year are identical to the growth rings of any other prefilled in that year okay so does this help in arriving at the conclusion is what we have to look at see the author says that the conclusion is that the year of construction of the building can be identified using the growth rings option B does not give any such information it is not helping ID helping coming to the conclusion it is just some random information provided whether or not this is true this is actually not true but whether or not this is true does not help in arriving at this conclusion okay this is not the basic assumption that is lying between these two parts of this and argument okay okay let's move on to the missing information piston in missing information question the data will be provided the argument will be provided you will just have to come up with a data or information that will be required in order to test the conclusion let us test the validity of the conclusion but since we are running out of time I would like to skip the testing of missing information question but basically you will be asked to find what information will be necessary in order to validate the conclusion drawn in the argument it should be very similar to the assumption question now let's location look at an implication person an implication is basically an inference question let's look at the question and you'll understand it very easily years ago consumers in Thailand began paying energy tax in the form of to fill and finish for each unit of energy consumed that came from non-renewable energy sources so when you use non renewable energy sources you pays you pay two pennies per unit okay now following the interruption of this energy tax there was a steady reduction in the total in the total yearly conception of energy from the not renewable resources so here there is energy and here's the tax okay you pay two pennies for every unit of non-renewable energy source you consume this is the conclusion drawn following the introduction of this energy tax there was a steady reduction so there is a steady drop in the total yearly consumption of energy from non-renewable energy sources so it says that there has been a drop in non-renewable energy source consumption okay now the question is that if the statements in the passage are true so consider that both the statements in the passage are true which of the following must be a must on the basis of them being true this is basically an inference if this has dropped you can basically understand that this has also grown right now look at an option that says the energy tax has the energy tax that was paid in the following years has also brought that is the basic inference from this question let's look at look at all the options that argue this way there was a steady decline in the yearly revenues generated by the energy – in Freedland this basically states the same thing as we were looking for there if there is a decline in the non-renewable energy source consumption There is obviously a decline in the energy tax that was collected so option D a could be right let's mark it down let's look at the other options eliminate them and then confirm with your option is right there was a steady decline the total amount of energy consumed each year in Finland okay so now comes the tricky part when you say that non-renewable energy source consumption has gone down it could mean that people have stopped using energy as a whole or people have started using renewable energy source okay there are two ways in which people have gone about it people could have stopped using energy altogether and might have stayed in the dark but people might have started using other forms of energy okay but you cannot arrive at a conclusion that either of these was right either both could be right or there could be even a third option you cannot arrive at a proper conclusion at which one of these could be right but you can arrive at a conclusion that the energy task that wasn't paid has gone down because they are directly proportional okay option B there was a steady decline in the total amount of energy consumed easier so people might have reduced non-renewable energy source and increased renewable energy source so that is not directly arrived from the given statements option B can be eliminated there was a steady increase in the use of renewable energy source so this is the path so B and C are paths either I mean either of them could be right but both cannot be so option C can be eliminated the revenues generated by the energy tax they are used to promote the use of energy from renewable energy sources this is something irrelevant it is not it cannot be arrived at directly from the given statements option D can be eliminated use of renewable energy sources in Finland greatly increased relative to the use of non-renewable energy sources again this is very similar to option C it says that renewable energy source consumption increased it could be that people stopped using all energy sources and stayed in the art okay you you cannot arrive at those conclusions from the given statements so option e can also be eliminated the only direct relation that you can arrive at from the given statements is that the energy tax has gone down and hence not any one energy source consumption has also gone down so option J is the right answer okay so this is implication basically inference whatever what you can arrive at from the given information in the passage now a discrepancy question a discrepancy or paradox Kristen like I said already it will have an obvious paradox some contradiction within the data or information provided you will have to choose an option that resolves this paradox now in resolving the paradox you will have to basically choose an option that gives reasons for why this contradiction might occur okay the question might be like this which of the following if true helps explain the apparent paradox in the shape interval or which of the following is true during the last three years this is for a specific question best in stem best three consoles the apparent discrepancy in the facts so guys if you are preparing for the GRE I would like you to do one thing from the 1 whenever you attend a webinar or there ever you come up with these come across these words say like discrepancy paradox reconcile or resolve any such words please note them down you might not know where you might encounter this these words again or whether there will be a specific word list that can help you understand these words but know them don't wherever you find them they may come in useful and handy even in your GRE think so learn words from whichever suppose you get that will help you a lot again I think time's running out so we may not be able to look into a discrepancy question but maybe we could share a question later if you would like to look at a question before wrapping up I would like you to understand that each part of the argument so and mainly spot the conclusion of the argument because the conclusion is the crucial part depending on which the question will be asked it will be either strengthening weakening or the assumption that is made in Aramaic incursion and stuff so it is important even if the calculation is the first line of the question as we saw in the first person it's important that you spot that if you do that then the rest of the things will fall in place Rikka but the question types just these are only the basic question types these are repetitive question types there are also other question types like argument analysis there the you have to analyze the given argument the same what role is played by a specific portion like this role plays the role of evidence this statement plays a role of evidence or this is the data given something is the proposition given something is that so that could be a rag question type complete it is like filling the banks if these statements are true then what could be true you'll have to complete the sentence again sentence completion this will again be based on it will be a multiple choice question will be given answer choices which you'll have to choose fallacy you will be asked why the given argument is flawed it is again you'll have options given five options out of which you'll have to choose one these will be it a easy but and these are very rare type questions it is not as frequently asked us the person types that we saw before okay so as far as critical reasonings can conserve as long as you are good at your meditative reasoning as you as long as you can draw equations from words this will be very easy for you just pay attention to the parts of the argument

1 thought on “GRE Verbal – Logical Thinking and Critical Reasoning || Recommended”

Leave a Reply

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