GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) Verbal Reasoning: Critical Reasoning Syllabus

What is an 'out-of-scope' trap answer?

A choice that addresses a topic not relevant to the specific conclusion. It may sound reasonable but doesn't affect the argument because it falls outside its scope.

What is a 'reversed-logic' trap in Weaken/Strengthen questions?

A choice that does the opposite of what's asked — e.g., a strengthener offered in a Weaken question. Tempting because it is clearly relevant, but it moves the argument the wrong direction.

Define a 'necessary assumption.'

An assumption the argument must have to be valid — without it, the argument falls apart. It is required but may not be enough by itself to prove the conclusion.

Define a 'sufficient assumption.'

An assumption that, if added, would be enough to guarantee the conclusion logically follows. It may state more than is strictly required.

How do necessary and sufficient assumptions differ in strength?

A necessary assumption is the minimum the argument needs (mild, must-be-true). A sufficient assumption fully closes the gap and can be stronger/broader than required. GMAT Assumption questions test the necessary type.

What is the Negation Test for assumptions?

Negate a candidate assumption; if the negation destroys (invalidates) the argument, it is a necessary assumption. If the argument survives the negation, it is not the assumption.

When applying the Negation Test, what does it mean if negating a choice has no effect on the argument?

That choice is not a necessary assumption and should be eliminated, because the argument doesn't depend on it.

What does an 'Evaluate the Argument' question ask you to find?

A question or piece of information whose answer would help determine whether the argument is strong or weak — typically one that tests the key assumption.

What is the 'Variance Test' for Evaluate-the-argument questions?

The correct choice is one where opposite answers swing the argument in opposite directions (one answer strengthens, the other weakens). If both possible answers leave the argument unchanged, it's wrong.

What is a 'useful to know' / Evaluate answer trying to target?

The central assumption or causal link of the argument — the information that would most help confirm or undermine the conclusion.

What does a 'boldface' (Describe the Role) question ask?

It asks for the logical role each boldfaced portion plays in the argument — e.g., premise, conclusion, intermediate conclusion, opposing position, evidence, or a claim the author argues against.

What is the first step in solving a boldface question?

Identify the author's main conclusion and overall position, then determine for each boldface part whether it supports, opposes, or is the author's conclusion.

What roles can a boldface statement play in an argument?

It can be the main conclusion, an intermediate (sub) conclusion, a supporting premise/evidence, a position the author opposes, a counter-consideration, or a prediction/judgment.

What is the defining requirement for the correct answer to a 'Must Be True' (Inference) question?

It must be 100% provable from the stimulus alone — directly stated or logically forced by the given information, requiring no outside assumptions.

In Inference questions, why are strongly-worded answer choices usually wrong?

Absolute words (all, always, never, only, cannot) overreach what the premises guarantee. Inference answers tend to be modestly worded (some, could, at least) because they must be provable.

What does 'drawing a conclusion from given premises' require on the GMAT?

Selecting the statement that follows logically and necessarily from combining the stated facts, without adding new information or making unsupported leaps.

What is 'overreach' (going beyond the stimulus)?

Concluding more than the evidence supports — adding new scope, stronger certainty, predictions, or recommendations the premises don't justify. Inference answers must avoid it.

What is a Paradox/Discrepancy question, and what is the goal?

The stimulus presents two seemingly contradictory facts. The goal is to find the choice that, if true, explains how both facts can be true simultaneously — resolving the apparent conflict.

What is the key trap to avoid in Paradox questions?

Choices that deepen the paradox, support only one side, or are irrelevant. The correct answer must reconcile BOTH facts, not pick a winner.

How should you evaluate a 'proposed plan' argument?

Check whether the plan's stated goal logically follows from its action, and identify assumptions about feasibility. To strengthen, show the plan will work / no obstacles; to weaken, show an obstacle or that it won't achieve the goal.

What assumptions typically underlie plan/recommendation arguments?

That the plan addresses the actual cause of the problem, that no significant side effects or obstacles exist, and that the resources/conditions needed for success are present.

What does a 'Method of Reasoning' question ask?

It asks how the argument is constructed — the logical technique or strategy the author uses (e.g., analogy, counterexample, citing an authority, ruling out alternatives), not whether it is true.

What does a 'Flaw in the Reasoning' question ask, and how do you answer it?

It asks you to identify the logical error the argument commits. Find the gap between premises and conclusion, then match it to the choice that abstractly names that error (e.g., 'mistakes correlation for causation').

What is a 'Complete the Argument' (fill-in-the-blank) question?

The stimulus ends with a blank, usually after a connector. You must choose the statement that logically completes the author's reasoning consistent with the surrounding context.

How does the connector before a fill-in-the-blank change the answer you need?

'Because/since/for' signals the blank is a supporting premise/reason; 'therefore/thus/so' signals the blank is the conclusion; 'but/however/yet' signals a contrast or counterpoint.

What is a systematic process for eliminating answer choices in Critical Reasoning?

Read the stem first to know the task, identify conclusion/premises/assumption, pre-think an answer, then eliminate choices that are out-of-scope, reversed, overreaching, irrelevant, or factually unsupported — keeping the one that matches your prediction.

Why should you read the question stem before the stimulus?

Knowing the question type tells you what to look for (assumption, weakener, inference, etc.), letting you read the stimulus with the right focus and pre-think effectively.

What is the difference between Weaken/Strengthen answers and Inference answers regarding outside information?

Weaken/Strengthen choices bring in NEW outside facts that affect the argument. Inference choices must contain NO new information beyond what the stimulus already supports.

In a Weaken question, does the correct answer have to disprove the conclusion?

No. It only needs to make the conclusion less likely or expose a gap in the reasoning. GMAT weakeners reduce the argument's strength rather than fully refute it.

What is the difference between a main conclusion and an intermediate conclusion?

A main conclusion is the argument's ultimate point and is not used to support anything else. An intermediate (sub) conclusion is supported by a premise but in turn supports the main conclusion.

What is the 'one-word scope shift' trap and why is it dangerous?

A choice (or the conclusion) swaps a single key term for a similar one (e.g., 'cost' to 'price,' 'likely' to 'certain'), subtly changing the meaning. It is dangerous because the shift is easy to miss but makes the statement out of scope or unsupported.