UNIT 1 NOTES

INTRODUCTION:
Critical reasoning is all about identifying, analysing and solving problem systematically.

FOUNDATION OF CRITICAL REASONING:

PRINCIPLES OF CRITICAL REASONING

Here are the basic things that you need to succeed of CR questions:

1. Understand the structure of an argument.

First, you must know how arguments are structures, so that you can know how to break them
down into their core components. When we use the word argument, we don’t mean a
conversation where 2 people are shouting at each other. An argument in Critical Reasoning
means any piece of text where an author puts forth a set of ideas and/or a point of view, and
attempts to support it.

Every argument is made up of two basic parts:

• The conclusion (the point that the author is trying to make)

• The evidence (the support that the author offers for the conclusion)

Success on this section hinges on your ability to identify these parts of the argument. There is
no general rule about where conclusion and evidence appear in the argument-the conclusion
could be the first sentence, followed by the evidence, or it could be the last sentence, with the
evidence preceding it.

EXAMPLE
Consider the stimulus (in other words, a passage):

The Brookdale Public Library will require extensive physical rehabilitation to meet the new
building codes passed by the town council. For one thing, the electrical system is in adequate,
causing the lights to flicker sporadically. Furthermore, there are too few emergency exits, and
even those are poorly marked and sometimes locker.

Suppose that the author of this argument was allowed only one sentence to convey her
meaning. Do you think she would waste her time with the following statement? Would she
walk away satisfied that her main point was communicated?

The electrical system [at the Brookdale Public Library] is inadequate, causing the lights to
flicker sporadically.

Probably not. Given a single opportunity, she would have to state the first sentence to convey
her real purpose:

The Brookdale Public Library will require extensive physical rehabilitation….

That is the conclusion. If you pressed the author to state her reasons for making that
statement, she would then cite the electrical and structural problems with the building. That is
the evidence for her conclusion.

But does that mean that an evidence statement like, “The electrical system in inadequate”
can’t be a conclusion? No, we’re just saying it’s not the conclusion for this particular
argument. Every idea, every new statement, must be evaluated in the context of the stimulus
in which it appears.

For the statement above to serve as the conclusion, the stimulus would be:

The electrical wiring at the Brookdale Public Library was installed over 40 years ago, and
appears to be corroded in some places (evidence). An electrician, upon inspection of the
system, found a few frayed wires as well as some blown fuses (evidence). Clearly, the
electrical system at the Brookdale Public Library is inadequate (conclusion).

To succeed in Critical Reasoning, you have to be able to determine the precise function of
every sentence in the stimulus. Use structural signals when attempting to isolate evidence and
conclusion. Key words in the stimulus-such as because, for, since- usually indicate that
evidence is about to follow, whereas therefore, hence, thus, and consequently usually signal a
conclusion.
2. Preview the question.

Before you read the stimulus, look over the question. This will give you some idea about
what you need to look for as you read. It gives you a jump on the question.

Suppose the question with the library argument above ask the following:

The author supports her point about the need for rehabilitation at the Brookdale library by
citing which of the following?

If you were to preview this question stem before you read the stimulus, you would know
what to look for in advance-namely, evidence, the “support” provided for the conclusion. Or
if the question stem asked you to find an assumption on which the author is relying, you
would know in advance that a crucial piece of the argument was missing, and you could think
about that right off the bat.

Previewing the stem allows you to set the tone of your attack, and thus saves you time in the
long run. As you’ll soon see, this technique will come in especially handy when we discuss
methods for the various question types.

3. Paraphrase the author’s point.

After you read the stimulus, paraphrase the author’s main argument to yourself. That is,
restate the author’s ideas in your own words. Frequently, the authors in Critical Reasoning
say pretty simple things in complex ways. So if you mentally translate the verbiage into a
simpler form, the whole thing should be more manageable.

In the library argument, for instance, you probably don’t want to deal with the full
complexity of the author’s stated conclusion:

The Brookdale Public Library will require extensive physical rehabilitation to meet the new
building codes just passed by the town council.

Instead, you probably want to paraphrase a much simpler point:

Often, by the time you begin reading through the answer choices you run the risk of losing
sight of the gist of the stimulus. So restating the argument in your own words will not only
help you get the author’s point in the first place, it will also help you hold on ot it until
you’ve found the correct answer.

4. Judge the argument’s persuasiveness.

You must read actively, not passively. Active readers are always thinking critically, forming
reactions as they go along. They question whether the author’s argument seems valid or
dubious. Especially when you are asked to find flaws in the author’s reasoning, it’s
imperative to read with a critical eye.

How persuasive is the argument about the library, let’s ask? Well, it’s pretty strong, because
the evidence certainly seems to indicate that certain aspects of the library’s structure need
repair. But without more evidence about what the new building codes are like, we can’t say
for sure that the conclusion of this argument is valid. So this is a strong argument but not an
airtight one.

Since part of what you’re called on to do here is to evaluate arguments, don’t let yourself fall
into the bad habits of the passive reader-reading solely for the purpose of getting through the
stimulus. Those who read this way invariably find themselves having to read the stimuli
twice or even three times. Then they’re caught short on time. Read the stimuli right the first
time-with a critical eye and an active mind.

5. Answer the question being asked.

One of the most disheartening experiences in Critical Reasoning is to understand the author’s
argument full but then supply an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. If you’re asked for
an inference supported by the argument, selecting the choice that paraphrases the author’s
conclusion will earn you no points. Neither will selecting a choice that looks vaguely like a
summary of the author’s evidence if you’re asked for an assumption.

The classic example of this error occurs on “Strengthen/Weaken” questions. When you’re
asked to strengthen or weaken an argument, you can be sure that there will be one, tow, even
three answer choices that do the opposite of what’s asked. Choosing such a wrong choice is
less a matter of failing to understand the argument than of failing to remember the task at
hand.

The question stem will always ask for something very specific. It’s your job to follow the test
makes’ line of reasoning to the credited response.

Also, be on the lookout for “reversers,” words such as not and except. These little words are
easy to miss, but they change entirely the kind of statement you’re looking for among the
choices.

6. Try to “prephrase” an answer.

This principle, which is really an extension of the last one, is crucial. You must try to
approach the answer choices with at least a faint idea of what the answer should look like.
That is, “prephrase” the answer in your own mind before looking at the choices. This isn’t to
say you should ponder the question for minutes-it’s still a multiple-choice test, so the right
answer is on the screen. Just get in the habit of framing an answer in your head.

Once you have prephrased, scan the choices. Sure, the correct choice on the exam will be
worded differently and will be more fleshed out than your vague idea. But if it matches your
thought, you’ll know it in a second. And you’ll find that there’s no more satisfying feeling in
Critical Reasoning than prephrasing correctly, and then finding the correct answer quickly
and confidently.

Continuing with the library situation, suppose you were asked:

The author’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions about the new
building codes?

Having thought about the stimulus argument, you might immediately come up with an
answer-here that the argument is based on the assumption that the new codes apply to
existing buildings as well as to new buildings under construction. After all, the library will
have to be rehabilitated to meet the new codes, according to the author. Clearly, the
assumption is that the codes apply to existing buildings. And that’s the kind of statement you
would look for among the choices.

Don’t be discouraged if you can’t always prephrase an answer. Some questions just won’t
have an answer that jumps out at you. But if used correctly, prephrasing works on many
questions. It will really boost your confidence and increase your speed on the section when
you can come up with a glimmer of what the right answer should look like, and then have it
jump right off the page at you.

7. Keep the scope of the argument in mind.

When you’re at the point of selecting one of the answer choices, focus on the scope of the
argument. Most of the wrong choices on the section are wrong because they are “outside the
scope.” In other words, the wrong answer choices contain elements that don’t match the
author’s ideas or that go beyond the context of the stimulus.

Some answer choices are too narrow, too broad, or have nothing to do with the author’s
points. Others are too extreme to match the argument’s scope-they’re usually signaled by
such words as all, always, never, none, and so on. For arguments that are moderate in tone,
correct answers are more qualified and contain such words as usually, sometimes, probably.

To illustrate the scope principle, let’s look again at the question mentioned above:

The author’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions about the new
building codes?

Let’s say one of the choices read as follows:

The new building codes are far too stringent.

Knowing the scope of the argument would help you to eliminate this choice very quickly.
You know that this argument is just a claim about what the new codes will require: that the
library be rehabilitated. It’s not an argument about whether the requirements of the new codes
are good, are justifiable, ore ridiculously strict. That kind of value judgment is outside the
scope of this argument.

Recognizing scope problems is a great way to eliminate dozens of wrong answers quickly.