Lesser-known techniques to crack critical thinking questions of GMAT

Honing the analytical skills will not only help you score high in GMAT and gain admission to a world-class B-School but also train you for a business career. So, during your GMAT preparation, concentrate on improving the ability to understand and interpret arguments. This is important to crack critical reasoning from the verbal skill segment of GMAT. In the critical analysis portion of the GMAT, one of the important points to note is that the concept is built to have a flaw. What you need is to find out what the defect is. An invalid presumption is an error itself, which would almost undoubtedly go unstated. The simplest way to do this is through a process widely credited, some 2,300 years ago, to Aristotle's work. The approach is named 'reduction to absurdity'.

In short, the reduction to absurdity relates to demonstrating within the confines of the argument that an 'absurd' scenario is probable. That's the intention of this form of argument on the GMAT, after all. A set of facts is given to you followed by a generalization based on those facts. In the case that this generalization is not ‘reasonably true’ or does not ‘directly follow’ from the facts, then you have a flaw.

All in all, you’re trying to drive a wedge between the facts and the conclusion by proving that the facts can somehow be true while the conclusion itself is false.

Identification of the flaw in the argument

If a statement doesn't follow directly from its specified evidence, it is very easy to say. You may have guessed it from the previous declaration already. Only presume that the facts are true and the inference is false, and ask yourself how that might be so. What about systematizing it?

Compile the facts. What is described as an authoritative declaration - is it something you can calculate, write down, or take a picture of?
Identify the outcome. What is described as a statement of opinion - is it something that requires the decision of someone? (Hint: Look for words like 'obviously' or 'must')
Assume that the facts are accurate and indisputable.
Ask yourself, "How can it be that the conclusion is not genuine?"
Think of any conditions that would permit this, no matter how impossible. In certain instances, the less probable it is, the better.
Nevertheless, what's confounding about the logical reasoning of the GMAT is that many of the arguments are not awful - in many cases, they might be valid!

Do not forget that you are searching for what is real. That's very distinct from "possibly true," or "yes, perhaps, sometimes true." What you're looking for is the exception where the statement may be wrong. Then it follows that the invalid assumption is going to be some kind of little fudge factor used to gloss over this little outlying problem.

In conclusion, negate the conclusion, revisit the facts and the extreme language of the conclusion, and remember that argument is not necessarily (always) true.

Check out other articles and stories: