Logical and Abstract Reasoning
Logical and Abstract Reasoning
This domain measures whether you can draw only the conclusions the premises force, spot patterns in words, numbers and shapes, and reason about relations rather than facts.
Core rules
- Syllogisms. A valid conclusion must follow from the premises as stated, even if the premises sound odd. Two universal premises give a universal conclusion; one particular premise gives at most a particular conclusion.
- Distribution. In All A are B, the A is fully distributed but the B is not, so you cannot reverse it into All B are A.
- Contrapositive. If P then Q is equivalent to If not Q then not P - never to If Q then P.
- Analogies. Identify the exact relationship (part to whole, cause to effect, tool to user, degree) before scanning the options, and check the direction of that relationship.
- Series and codes. Track arithmetic changes, alphabetic positions, and mirrored or shifted letters; check alternating positions when a single rule fails.
- Odd-one-out. Find the single feature that all but one item share, then check whether a second feature also fits.
Worked example
All petty officers are sailors. Some sailors are swimmers. Therefore some petty officers are swimmers.
This is invalid. The sailors who swim may lie entirely outside the petty-officer group; the middle term is never distributed. The safe conclusion is only that some sailors are petty officers.
Traps that cost marks
- Importing real-world knowledge into an abstract premise set.
- Reversing some statements: Some A are B does not yield Some B are A automatically in meaning-based items.
- Affirming the consequent: from If P then Q and Q, concluding P is a fallacy.
- Answering the analogy on topic similarity rather than the specific relation.
- Choosing a shape series answer that matches one feature but breaks another.
- Overlooking a second valid rule that makes an option wrong.