Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) Verbal Reasoning Syllabus

What three structural parts make up a GMAT Critical Reasoning argument?

The conclusion (the main claim being argued for), the premises (evidence/support offered), and assumptions (unstated ideas required for the premises to support the conclusion).

How do you locate the conclusion of a CR argument?

Find the main claim the author wants you to accept—often signaled by therefore, thus, clearly, or hence. Use the "Therefore Test": premises should logically lead to it. The conclusion is supported by other statements but supports none above it.

What is the difference between a premise and a conclusion in an argument?

A premise is offered as evidence/support (the "because" statement); a conclusion is the claim that the premises are meant to establish (the "therefore" statement). Premises answer "why should I believe the conclusion?"

What is an assumption in GMAT Critical Reasoning?

An unstated premise that must be true for the argument's conclusion to follow from its stated premises. It bridges a gap between evidence and conclusion; if false, the argument falls apart.

Define the "correlation-causation" logical flaw.

Assuming that because two things occur together or one follows another, one caused the other. The flaw ignores reverse causation, coincidence, or a third underlying factor that causes both.

Define the "sampling" (unrepresentative sample) flaw in CR.

Drawing a conclusion about a whole population from a sample that is too small, biased, or unrepresentative. The argument assumes the sample mirrors the larger group when it may not.

What is the "survey/poll reliability" flaw?

Treating survey results as accurate without considering whether respondents told the truth, whether questions were biased, or whether the surveyed group represents the relevant population.

What is the "percent vs. number" (rate vs. absolute) flaw?

Confusing a change in percentage/proportion with a change in absolute number. A higher percentage need not mean a higher total if the base size changed, and vice versa.

Define the "equivocation" or term-shift flaw in arguments.

Using the same word or concept in two different senses, or treating two non-identical terms as equivalent. The conclusion only follows if the meanings match, which they do not.

What is the "false dilemma" (either/or) flaw?

Assuming only two options exist when other possibilities are available, then rejecting one to "prove" the other. The argument ignores middle-ground or alternative outcomes.

What is "pre-thinking the answer" in GMAT Critical Reasoning?

Before reading the answer choices, identifying the gap in the argument and predicting what a correct answer should do (e.g., the assumption it relies on, or how to strengthen/weaken it). This guards against trap answers.

Why is pre-thinking valuable on Strengthen/Weaken and Assumption questions?

It focuses you on the logical gap between premises and conclusion, so you can match a prediction to the choices instead of being lured by tempting but irrelevant or out-of-scope answers.

What does a Strengthen question ask you to do?

Find the choice that, if true, makes the conclusion more likely to follow from the premises—typically by affirming a key assumption, ruling out an alternative explanation, or adding supporting evidence.

What does a Weaken question ask you to do?

Find the choice that, if true, makes the conclusion less likely—typically by attacking an assumption, introducing an alternative cause, or showing the evidence does not support the conclusion. It need not disprove the argument, only undermine it.

On a Weaken question about a causal claim (X causes Y), what are the classic ways to weaken it?

Show Y occurs without X; show X occurs without Y; show a third factor causes both; or show the causation is reversed (Y causes X). Any of these undercuts the proposed cause-and-effect link.

How do you weaken an argument based on an analogy?

Show that the two compared cases differ in a relevant way, so what holds for one need not hold for the other. Breaking the relevant similarity undermines the inference drawn from the analogy.

What is the "negation test" for Assumption questions?

Negate a candidate assumption; if the argument falls apart when the negation is true, that choice is a necessary assumption. If the argument survives the negation, the choice is not the required assumption.

What is the difference between a necessary assumption and a sufficient assumption?

A necessary assumption must be true for the argument to hold (tested by negation). A sufficient assumption, if added, would guarantee the conclusion. GMAT "Assumption" questions ask for necessary assumptions.

Why are extreme or overly strong choices usually wrong on Assumption questions?

A necessary assumption needs to be only as strong as required to bridge the gap. Words like always, only, never, or all assert more than the argument needs, so negating them rarely destroys the argument.

What does an Evaluate the Argument question ask?

It asks which question, if answered, would most help determine whether the argument is sound—i.e., which piece of information would most affect the conclusion's validity.

What is the "Variance Test" for Evaluate questions?

Consider the two extreme answers to the candidate question. If one answer strengthens and the other weakens the argument, the question is relevant and correct. If both answers leave the argument unchanged, it is irrelevant.

How does an Inference/Conclusion question in Critical Reasoning differ from a Strengthen/Weaken question?

In Inference questions the stimulus is treated as a set of facts (premises) and you must find the choice that must be true based on them. There is no flawed argument to attack; you draw a guaranteed conclusion from given information.

What is the safest type of answer on a CR Inference (must-be-true) question?

A conservatively worded choice that follows directly and necessarily from the given statements—often weaker/qualified ("some," "at least," "may"). Avoid choices needing outside information or making stronger claims than the facts support.

What is a Boldface (reasoning-structure) question?

A CR question with one or two bolded portions where you must identify the logical role each bolded statement plays—e.g., the conclusion, a premise, an objection, evidence the author argues against, or a position the author opposes.

What is the first step in attacking a Boldface question?

Find the author's main conclusion and determine the author's position. Then classify each bold statement by whether it supports or opposes that conclusion and whether it is the author's claim or someone else's.

In Boldface questions, what is the key distinction between an "intermediate conclusion" and the "main conclusion"?

An intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion is supported by some premises but is itself used to support the main conclusion. The main conclusion is the final claim that everything else supports and that supports nothing further.

What does a Resolve the Paradox (discrepancy) question present?

Two facts that seem contradictory or surprising together. You must find the choice that explains how both can be true at once, eliminating the apparent conflict without disputing either fact.

What is the correct approach to a Resolve the Paradox question?

Pinpoint the two seemingly conflicting facts, then choose the option that introduces information making both consistent. The right answer reconciles them; wrong answers deepen the paradox, address only one fact, or are irrelevant.

In a Resolve the Paradox question, why is a choice that only restates or supports one of the facts wrong?

Resolving the paradox requires bridging both facts. A choice that merely confirms one side leaves the tension intact; the correct answer must explain why both facts can coexist.

What is "scope" in GMAT Verbal, and why does it matter for eliminating answers?

Scope is the specific topic and boundaries of the passage or argument. Out-of-scope answers introduce people, comparisons, or issues the text never addresses; they are wrong even if true, because they fall outside what is discussed.

Across CR question types, what general rule distinguishes Strengthen/Weaken/Assumption from Inference questions about where new information may come from?

Strengthen, Weaken, and Assumption questions allow outside information in the answer choices to act on a flawed argument. Inference (must-be-true) questions require the answer to follow solely from the given statements, with no outside information.