EPSO Verbal Reasoning cheat sheet

The main idea must cover the whole passage; an option true of only one sentence is a detail, not the main idea.

Test each candidate main idea by asking whether the other sentences would be evidence for it.

A passage's main idea is usually stated in the first or last sentence; if absent, it is implied and must be inferred.

Reject options that are too narrow (one paragraph's point) or too broad (a topic the passage never argues).

Topic vs. main idea: the topic is the subject (a noun phrase); the main idea is a claim about that subject (a full statement).

When two options both seem right, prefer the one whose scope matches the passage's own qualifiers (some, most, often).

A passage can describe, explain, argue, or narrate; the main idea must match the text's function, not just its subject.

If the passage presents two views, the main idea may be the contrast itself rather than either view alone.

A detail question is answered only by text that states it; outside knowledge, however true, is not evidence.

Match the exact noun, number, and qualifier in the option against the passage before accepting it.

Watch for swapped subjects: an option may attach a true fact to the wrong person, place, or period.

Absolute words in options (always, never, all, only) usually signal a distortion of a qualified statement.

Dates, quantities, and names are common traps; locate the sentence and re-read it rather than relying on memory.

Order-of-mention is not causation; an option claiming sequence or cause must be checked against explicit wording.

An option can be false because it is partially correct: one clause matches, another adds unsupported material.

Answers to detail questions are usually paraphrases, so compare meaning, not identical wording.

A valid inference is entailed by the text: denying it would contradict something the passage states or implies.

Necessary inference vs. possible inference: the correct option must be forced, not merely plausible.

Reject options that require an unstated assumption about motives, causes, or future events.

Quantifier logic: 'all A are B' does not imply 'all B are A'; 'some A are B' does not imply 'some A are not B'.

Conditional logic: 'if P then Q' licenses 'not Q therefore not P', but not 'Q therefore P'.

If the passage says most X do Y, an option saying all X do Y is not supported.

Inference questions often hinge on a contrast word (however, although, despite); the implied point usually sits there.

A conclusion drawn from a sample supports only claims about that sample unless the passage asserts representativeness.

Context meaning overrides dictionary meaning: substitute each candidate into the original sentence and test coherence.

Check the word's grammatical role (verb, noun, adjective) first; a shift in part of speech changes the sense.

Look for nearby definition or restatement cues: dashes, colons, 'that is', 'in other words', appositives.

Contrast cues (but, unlike, rather than) signal that the meaning is the opposite of a nearby term.

Connotation matters: a neutral synonym can fail if the passage's tone is critical or approving.

Figurative uses (anchor, cement, fuel) must be read metaphorically; literal synonyms will not fit.

For pronoun-reference questions, the antecedent must agree in number and make sense in the sentence.

Idiomatic phrases (bear out, fall short, give way to) should be learned as units, not word by word.

Purpose verbs are precise: to describe, to explain, to argue, to refute, to caution, to advocate, to compare.

Tone is carried by adjectives, adverbs, and evaluative verbs; collect them before choosing a tone label.

Common tone pairs to distinguish: critical vs. neutral, cautious vs. confident, ironic vs. sincere, detached vs. engaged.

Irony signals: praise that contradicts stated facts, exaggeration, or understatement in a critical context.

An author who presents counterarguments may be fair-minded rather than undecided; balance is not neutrality of conclusion.

Hedging words (may, appears, suggests) indicate tentativeness; strong modals (must, clearly) indicate confidence.

Style questions concern register and rhetoric (formal, technical, persuasive, narrative), not the topic.

Where does the author stand? The concluding sentence often reveals attitude more directly than the opening.

Conclusion = the claim the author wants accepted; evidence = the reasons offered; assumption = the unstated link between them.

Conclusion indicators: therefore, thus, hence, so, consequently, it follows that. Premise indicators: because, since, given that, for.

A necessary assumption is one whose negation would destroy the argument; test by negating the candidate.

Evidence can be data, examples, expert testimony, or analogy; identify which type before evaluating strength.

An intermediate conclusion is supported by evidence and itself supports the main conclusion; map the chain.

Correlation stated in evidence does not by itself establish causation in the conclusion.

An argument's conclusion is often the first sentence in persuasive passages, with reasons following.

Distinguish the author's claim from a view the author reports in order to criticize it.

To weaken, attack the assumption linking evidence to conclusion, or supply an alternative cause for the evidence.

To strengthen, confirm the assumption, rule out an alternative explanation, or add evidence of the same kind.

A weakening option must make the conclusion less likely, not merely make the author look bad or raise an unrelated doubt.

Alternative-cause options ('the effect would have occurred anyway') are classic weakeners in causal arguments.

Sample-based arguments are weakened by evidence of bias or non-representativeness in the sample.

Analogy arguments are weakened by a relevant dissimilarity and strengthened by a relevant similarity.

Evaluate-the-argument questions ask for the flaw or the most useful additional evidence, not for your own opinion.

An option that restates a premise strengthens nothing new; it must add support or remove support.

A correct summary preserves the main claim and the key support while dropping examples, asides, and repetition.

Paraphrase changes wording and structure but must keep scope, qualifiers, and logical relations intact.

Reject summaries that add conclusions the passage never draws or omit a necessary condition.

Synthesis across paragraphs: identify where the passage agrees with itself and where it shifts or qualifies.

If two passages are compared, separate their shared claim from their point of disagreement.

A summary that reverses the order of cause and effect, or of concession and rebuttal, is inaccurate even if brief.

Quantifiers and modal verbs must survive paraphrase: 'often' cannot become 'always', 'may' cannot become 'will'.

The best summary answers: what is the passage mainly saying, and why does it say so?