Reasoning Within the Text: Analyzing Argument Structure
Reasoning Within the Text asks you to analyze how the passage's argument works: what the author claims, what evidence is offered, what must be assumed for that evidence to support the claim, and what follows from the stated premises. The answer must be licensed by the text, not merely plausible.
Core moves
- Map the argument: conclusion, premises, and any concession.
- Ask what bridge is missing between evidence and claim. That bridge is an assumption.
- For inference questions, prefer weak, qualified statements that must be true over strong claims that could be true.
- Check whether evidence is sufficient, representative, and relevant to the exact conclusion.
- Notice hedging ("may," "suggests") and absolute language ("proves," "all").
Worked example
Passage: "The city installed protected bike lanes on Main Street last year. Counts show cyclist volume rose 40 percent. Therefore, the lanes reduced car congestion downtown."
Question: The argument depends on which assumption?
Reasoning: The evidence is about cyclist volume; the conclusion is about car congestion. The argument needs a link: that increased cycling removed enough cars from downtown roads to reduce congestion. Without that link, more cyclists could coexist with unchanged or worse car traffic. An answer about cyclists feeling safer addresses a different conclusion.
Traps
- Treating a correlation as proof of cause.
- Selecting an inference that is true in the real world but not entailed by the passage.
- Confusing a sufficient assumption with a necessary one.
- Missing the author's concession, which often limits the conclusion's scope.
- Choosing an answer that repeats evidence instead of identifying the gap.