Critical Reasoning Question Types on the GMAT
Understanding the various Critical Reasoning (CR) question types on the GMAT is essential for success on the Verbal section. While the concepts may seem straightforward, their application is where many test-takers struggle. This guide will walk you through each question type and highlight common pitfalls to avoid.
The Comprehension Challenge
Before diving into specific question types, it’s important to recognize a fundamental insight from my decade of experience tutoring GMAT students: approximately 70% of errors in CR questions stem from comprehension issues. When you misunderstand the passage or answer choices, even perfect reasoning won’t lead to the correct answer. You’ll be applying solid logic to faulty premises, inevitably reaching incorrect conclusions.
Think of it like applying the perfect cooking technique to the wrong ingredients—you might execute the recipe flawlessly, but your dish will still turn out wrong because you started with something different than what was required.
Question Types and Common Mistakes
1. Inference Questions
This question type asks you to determine what logically follows from the given information.
Common Mistakes:
Confusing indication with inference:
Just because something is suggested doesn’t mean it can be logically deduced.
Analogy: If you’re asking me which bike to buy, and I tell you that Bike X has excellent fuel efficiency, this indicates I think Bike X is worth considering, but you cannot infer that I’m recommending you should buy Bike X. The indication and potential inference are about the same thing (whether you should buy Bike X), but one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other.
Confusing possibility with inference:
Something that might happen based on the passage cannot be inferred as something that will happen.
Analogy: If I say “If you invest in this stock, you may see returns within a year,” you cannot infer that investing will definitely bring returns. You can only recognize it as a possibility. An inference must be necessarily true based on the given information, not just possibly true.
2. Strengthen Questions
This question type asks you to identify information that makes an argument’s conclusion more likely to be true. More likely than what? More likely than before you heard the option. So, you need to ask whether, after reading this option, you are more likely to believe in the argument’s conclusion. If yes, the option is a strengthener. If no, it is not.
Common Mistakes:
Confusing magnitude with direction:
A strengthener doesn’t need to completely prove the conclusion; it just needs to make it more likely.
Analogy: Adding one sandbag to a barrier during a flood strengthens the defense, even if it doesn’t completely guarantee the area won’t flood. We’re looking for that additional sandbag that makes the argument stronger, not for a complete guarantee that the conclusion is true. The magnitude of strengthening doesn’t matter—only the direction.
Confusing strengthen with proving:
A strengthener supports the conclusion but doesn’t need to prove it conclusively.
Analogy: Finding out that a job candidate has relevant experience strengthens their application, but doesn’t guarantee they’ll get the job. We’re looking for a supporting piece of evidence, not a guarantee of truth.
Believing they can’t use common sense:
GMAT CR requires application of real-world knowledge within reason.
Analogy: If a passage discusses a runner training for a marathon, you can use common knowledge that regular practice improves performance without needing the passage to explicitly state this. Thus, an option stating that runner X is more regular in his practice than runner Y supports the conclusion that runner X will outperform runner Y. The option doesn’t prove this conclusion but strengthens it using common sense.
3. Weaken Questions
This question type asks you to identify information that makes an argument’s conclusion less likely to be true. Less likely than what? Less likely than before you heard the option. So, you need to ask whether, after reading this option, you are less likely to believe in the argument’s conclusion. If yes, the option is a weakener. If no, it is not.
Common Mistakes:
Similar to strengthen questions, test-takers often confuse magnitude with direction and weakening with completely disproving.
Analogy: Finding a single negative review for a highly-rated restaurant weakens your confidence in its quality, even if it doesn’t completely change your mind about eating there. We’re looking for that one piece of evidence that introduces doubt, not proof that the conclusion is false.
4. Assumption Questions
This question type asks you to identify an option that the argument needs or depends on. In other words, the argument cannot stand if that option were not true.
Common Mistakes:
Confusing assumption with inference:
An assumption is something the argument needs to be true but doesn’t state, while an inference is something that follows from what’s stated.
Analogy: If someone says, “I’ll bring my umbrella because it might rain,” they’re assuming that an umbrella helps in rain (unstated assumption). The inference we can draw is that this person doesn’t want to get wet if it rains.
Confusing assumption with strengthener:
An assumption is necessary for the argument, while a strengthener simply supports it.
Analogy: For the statement “This plant will die without water, so I need to water it,” the assumption is that the plant won’t receive water from another source. A strengthener might be that the forecast shows no rain is expected.
5. Evaluate Questions
This question type asks you to identify information that would be most useful to assess an argument’s validity. The options are in terms of questions in this question type. We’re looking for a question whose answer will yield a strengthener or a weakener.
Common Mistakes:
Similar to strengthen/weaken questions, test-takers often look for options that completely prove or disprove rather than those that provide relevant evaluation criteria.
Analogy: When buying a used car, asking about its maintenance history helps evaluate its condition, even if this information alone doesn’t definitively tell you whether to buy it.
6. Paradox Questions
This question type asks you to explain seemingly contradictory facts presented in the passage. The correct option provides a reason how the two seemingly contradictory things can coexist.
Common Mistakes:
Believing that the correct option must completely reconcile the contradiction:
It needs to give direction like a strengthener or a weakener.
Analogy: If a typically punctual friend is late to a meeting, learning they encountered unexpected traffic explains the discrepancy, even if you don’t know all the details of the traffic situation. The explanation provides a direction toward reconciliation, even if it doesn’t address every possible objection.
Disproving a fact doesn’t lead to reconciliation:
The goal is to explain how both facts can be true, not to disprove one of them.
Analogy: If a restaurant is both highly rated and rarely crowded, claiming the ratings are fake doesn’t resolve the paradox—it just dismisses one of the facts. A proper resolution might be that the restaurant has limited seating but excellent food.
