Analytical and Logical Reasoning
Logical reasoning items test whether a conclusion must follow, not whether it sounds plausible. Core concepts: deductive validity (the conclusion is guaranteed if the premises are true), conditional statements ("if P then Q"), syllogisms with quantifiers (all, some, none), necessary versus sufficient conditions, assumptions (unstated premises a conclusion depends on), strengthen/weaken questions, and the difference between correlation and causation. Ordering, grouping, and scheduling puzzles appear too; draw a quick diagram rather than holding the constraints in your head.
Traps dominate here. Affirming the consequent ("if P then Q; Q, therefore P") and denying the antecedent ("if P then Q; not P, therefore not Q") are both invalid, yet both feel correct. "Some" means at least one and is compatible with "all"; it does not mean "some but not all". Quantifier scope matters: "all A are B" tells you nothing about whether any B is an A. Watch for choices that merely restate a premise, choices that are true in the real world but unsupported by the passage, and necessary/sufficient confusion.
Rule of thumb: for any conditional, test a proposed conclusion by negating the consequent - from "not Q" you may validly infer "not P". That single move eliminates most wrong answers.
Worked example: "All officers at this port who handle commercial shipments are trained in hazardous cargo. Officer R does not handle commercial shipments." Does it follow that R is untrained? No. The premise is "if handles shipments, then trained". R's situation denies the antecedent, which licenses no conclusion at all - R may or may not be trained.