Critical Reasoning
What the section tests
Critical Reasoning asks you to treat short arguments as structures: premises offered as evidence, and a conclusion drawn from them. The conclusion is what the author wants you to accept; premises are the support. Everything else - background, concessions, definitions - is scaffolding.
Concepts you must command
- Conclusion identification: look for opinion markers (therefore, clearly, should) and ask which sentence the others are trying to support.
- Assumption: an unstated premise needed for the conclusion to follow. Test it by negating it - if the argument collapses, it is an assumption.
- Strengthen / weaken: attack or reinforce the link between evidence and conclusion, not the evidence itself.
- Flaw types: circular reasoning, correlation treated as causation, sample bias, equivocation, false dilemma, attacking the person rather than the claim.
- Paradox and evaluate questions: for paradox, find the option that lets both facts hold; for evaluate, find the question whose answer would change the verdict.
Traps
Many tempting options lie outside the argument's scope - a different group, time frame or quantity. Others restate a premise in new words and change nothing. Watch for percentage versus absolute number slippage, and for choices that are too strong (all, only, proves) when the argument needs only a modest claim. A weakener that shows the evidence is flawed is weaker than one that shows the conclusion can be true while the evidence stands.
Rule of thumb
Before reading the options, compress the argument to one line: 'Because X, therefore Y.' Then ask what must be true for Y to follow from X, and check each option against that bridge.
Worked example: 'Sales rose after the ad campaign, so the campaign caused the rise.' A good weakener: a major competitor closed during the same period, so sales may have risen regardless.