MCAT CARS cheat sheet

The main idea must cover the whole passage; a true statement that covers only one paragraph is a supporting detail, not the main idea.

Thesis placement is usually early (first third) or restated at the end; a passage with no explicit thesis requires inferring the author's unifying claim.

Function questions ask why a sentence or paragraph exists, not what it says: answer with a role such as 'concedes a point before rebutting it.'

Scope words (all, most, some, only, primarily) determine whether an answer choice is too broad, too narrow, or correctly calibrated.

Tone is identified from evaluative diction (adjectives, adverbs, hedges such as 'arguably') rather than from topic alone.

A passage's structure is one of a small set: claim-then-evidence, problem-then-solution, comparison, chronological narrative, or concession-then-rebuttal.

Distinguish the author's voice from quoted voices; a view attributed to 'critics' is not the author's view unless the author endorses it.

Detail questions are answered by locating the exact sentence; the correct choice paraphrases it without adding causal or evaluative claims.

An inference is valid only if it is forced by stated evidence; an answer that is merely plausible or consistent with the passage is a distractor.

Identify the conclusion and its premises: the conclusion is the claim the rest of the passage is offered to support, and it usually carries the author's main point.

Causal claims require evidence ruling out alternatives (reverse causation, common cause); correlation alone never establishes causation in the text.

Watch for scope shifts: a premise about one population, time period, or definition cannot support a conclusion about a different one.

A necessary assumption is what must be true for the argument to work; negate the candidate assumption and check whether the argument collapses.

Words like 'thus,' 'therefore,' and 'clearly' mark conclusions; 'because,' 'since,' and 'for example' mark support.

Weakener and strengthener answers act on the link between evidence and conclusion, not on the conclusion's plausibility in general.

A claim that the passage presents as another person's position cannot be used as evidence of the author's own belief without textual endorsement.

New-information questions require applying the passage's principle or finding to a case not mentioned in the passage; the correct answer preserves the passage's logic.

Analogy answers must match the underlying relationship (function, cause, or principle), not surface topic similarity.

When asked what the author would most likely believe about a new case, apply the author's stated principle consistently, even if the result is counterintuitive.

'Most similar' and 'most analogous' questions are decided by structural mapping: same relation, different content.

Predictions must follow from the passage's evidence plus a minimal, uncontroversial premise; answers requiring extra unstated assumptions are wrong.

Strengthen/weaken-with-new-evidence questions: the new evidence must bear on the specific inferential gap already present in the passage.

An answer that contradicts a stated premise is wrong regardless of how well it fits the passage's general theme.

When two choices seem to apply, prefer the one whose application requires fewer additional assumptions beyond the passage.

Main-idea stems ('primarily concerned with,' 'central claim') demand a whole-passage summary; detail stems ('according to the passage') demand a located paraphrase.

'EXCEPT' and 'LEAST' questions invert the task: three choices are supported by the text and one is not, so verify each choice against the passage.

For 'the author mentions X in order to' stems, the answer names the rhetorical function of X, not X's content.

If a choice contains a term the passage never uses and cannot be paraphrased from the passage, treat it as out of scope.

Roman-numeral and multiple-select formats require evaluating each statement independently before combining.

Extreme wording in an answer choice is not automatically wrong, but it must be matched by equally strong wording in the passage.

Argument structure = premises + unstated assumption + conclusion; the assumption is the bridge the author leaves implicit.

Sufficient assumption guarantees the conclusion; necessary assumption is required but may not be enough - do not conflate them.

A premise that merely restates the conclusion in different words provides no support and signals a circular argument.

Statistical evidence supports a conclusion only if the sample is representative and the comparison group is appropriate.

Counterexample reasoning: a single case contradicting a universal claim refutes it; a single case confirming it does not prove it.

Evaluating an author's evidence means asking whether the evidence, if true, actually bears on the specific conclusion drawn.

When the passage reports a study, the conclusion's strength must not exceed the study design (observational vs. experimental).

Principle-application: extract the general rule from the passage, then test each answer choice as an instance of that rule.

For 'would most likely agree' questions, the correct answer is entailed by the author's stated commitments, not by common sense or the test-taker's own view.

New-evidence strengtheners must close the exact gap identified in the argument; evidence supporting an already-accepted premise adds nothing.

Analogy mapping: identify the relation in the passage (A causes B; A is a means to B), then find the choice with the same relation.

If a choice requires assuming a fact absent from both passage and choice text, it is unsupported as an application.

Predictions about a new scenario must respect the passage's stated conditions and limits, including scope and exceptions.

Two answers may both be true; only one applies the passage's reasoning, so select on relevance to the inferential structure.

Out-of-scope trap: a choice is true in the real world but not supported by anything in the passage.

Reverse-logic trap: the choice states the opposite causal direction or flips which side the evidence favors.

Overreach trap: the choice converts a hedged claim ('may,' 'suggests') into a certainty ('proves,' 'always').

Half-right trap: the first clause is supported but the second clause adds an unsupported claim; evaluate the entire choice.

Distractor reuse trap: a choice repeats a vivid passage phrase while misstating its role or its logical relation.

Comparison trap: a choice asserts a contrast the passage never draws between two mentioned entities.

Map each paragraph to one function label (background, claim, evidence, objection, rebuttal, implication) before answering questions.

Track referents for pronouns and 'this view'/'such claims' phrases; ambiguous reference is a common source of wrong detail answers.

Note the passage's discipline (humanities, social science, natural science) because it predicts typical evidence types and typical wrong answers.

Definitions introduced mid-passage govern later uses of the term; an answer using the everyday sense of the term is a trap.

Chronology and contrast markers ('however,' 'yet,' 'by contrast') signal where the author's own position diverges from reported views.

Quantitative statements in the passage should be read for what they compare (rates vs. totals, absolute vs. relative change).