Critical Reasoning

Hi everyone,
My topic of concern comes against the backdrop of incessant attempts at trying to increase my accuracy in CR. However, I seem to have a hit a wall, as I have adopted quite a few strategies with hardly any luck. I prepared for CR using Powerscore, which did help me understand the basics of it all, but either maybe due to my lack of comprehension or the sheer fact that I employ too much of haste in solving CR questions, hasn't really proved to be a fruitful investment.
I took the MGMAT Mock a month back, an scored a V37. But I did so without taking the AWA and IR sections, so it maybe inflated. My mocks on the 800score.com series have been abysmal to say the least. They range from a score as low as V25 to a slightly better V33. Though I have increased my accuracy in SC and RC, CR continues to be the bane of my GMAT prep.

I am confused whether I should employ the much acclaimed strategies or have a simple process at hand to solve each and every question of CR.

( I take less time on my correct HARD questions than on the correct SIMPLE ones
Accuracy in STRENGTHEN=60%, ASSUMPTION=50%, WEAKEN=42%, BOLDFACE= 29%, INFERENCE=46%, based on SKill Data Analysis on the e-gmat website. Question Bank consisted of about 50% HARD questions in each sub section. )

Here you largely answered your own question.

I seem to have a hit a wall, as I have adopted quite a few strategies with hardly any luck. I prepared for CR using Powerscore, which did help me understand the basics of it all, but either maybe due to my lack of comprehension or the sheer fact that I employ too much of haste in solving CR questions, hasn't really proved to be a fruitful investment.

Yup, you are not getting them right because you "employ too much of haste".

Here you have your solution.

I am confused whether I should employ the much acclaimed strategies or have a simple process at hand to solve each and every question of CR.

My opinion? For the most part, "much acclaimed strategies" will get you to pretty much what you have gotten, verbal scores in the mid 30s.

Here's an example of a "much acclaimed" critical reasoning strategy. "If an answer says something that seems too extreme, that choice is probably not the right answer."

While there is some truth underlying that strategy, what if an extreme answer is the right answer?

Here's another one. "Prethink the answer and look for what you came up with."

Ok, sometimes something about the argument does jump out at you, but generally speaking in prethinking an answer you are spending time coming up with an answer when there are five answer choices already written for you. Meanwhile the answer you come up with may very well not be the answer the question writer came up with, but the answer you come up with may seem like what is said in one of the wrong answer choices. Hmm. So you choose that one, and get SMOKED!!!

I have a better strategy, a "simple process", as you said. Here it is, in all its glory.

Actually figure out what is going on in the prompt and answer choices, working to understand the logic of all of them and seeing with basically mathematical precision what the correct answer choice is.

To get good at doing this you need to practice SLOWLY at first, getting good at noticing key details such as conclusions, scope shifts, the fact that an answer choice is valid in isolation but is not related to the question at hand, and the at times extremely subtle differences between the best answer choice and another answer choice.

Generally speaking, in well written GMAT critical reasoning questions there is one clearly right answer, and if, rather than relying on some gimmicky strategy, you really work to see what is going on, there will be virtually NO question in your mind which one it is.

People seem to forget that the GMAT is an entrance exam for business school. Does it make sense that getting into and performing at a high level at business school would require learning all kinds of gimmicky strategies? Or that it would require being very good at clearly seeing what is going on in situations?

Recently someone asked me what a verbal question, a sentence correction question, was testing. I guess he expected me to say something about a grammar rule or sentence construction convention. Nah. I told him what it was really testing, vision.

To score high on GMAT verbal, and quant, you need to develop your vision.

Here's a blog post I wrote on this subject.

https://infinitemindprep.com/on-the-gmat ... ogic-rule/

Let's see you get to the point of getting around 100% of CR right.

rajat1994 wrote:Hi everyone,
My topic of concern comes against the backdrop of incessant attempts at trying to increase my accuracy in CR. However, I seem to have a hit a wall, as I have adopted quite a few strategies with hardly any luck. I prepared for CR using Powerscore, which did help me understand the basics of it all, but either maybe due to my lack of comprehension or the sheer fact that I employ too much of haste in solving CR questions, hasn't really proved to be a fruitful investment.
I took the MGMAT Mock a month back, an scored a V37. But I did so without taking the AWA and IR sections, so it maybe inflated. My mocks on the 800score.com series have been abysmal to say the least. They range from a score as low as V25 to a slightly better V33. Though I have increased my accuracy in SC and RC, CR continues to be the bane of my GMAT prep.

I am confused whether I should employ the much acclaimed strategies or have a simple process at hand to solve each and every question of CR.

( I take less time on my correct HARD questions than on the correct SIMPLE ones
Accuracy in STRENGTHEN=60%, ASSUMPTION=50%, WEAKEN=42%, BOLDFACE= 29%, INFERENCE=46%, based on SKill Data Analysis on the e-gmat website. Question Bank consisted of about 50% HARD questions in each sub section. )

Marty offers some valuable wisdom here. CR strategies shouldn't be thought of as substitutes for a fundamental understanding of the argument. Rather, they're tools, or complements, to deepen your understanding of the prompt. Pre-phrasing a solution to a question, for example, is really just a way to encourage you to think hard about the logic of the argument and consider what it might be missing. Being wary of extreme language forces you to pay attention to linguistic details, which are important in CR questions. Is something true "some" of the time? "Most" of the time? "All" of the time? "Never?" The biggest issue most test-takers have on CR is that by the time they get to verbal, they're mentally depleted, and so they want a simple framework that will allow them to solve these questions without having to focus too hard. There is no such strategy, as these questions, at heart, are testing your ability to focus. The strategies, again, are a means to cultivate that focus. So go back to the questions you've missed and make notes on why you missed them. (I'd be willing to wager that "focus" and "attention to detail" will be issues, because they're issues for virtually everyone.) When you're doing practice questions, be mindful of what approach works best for you. If writing down the conclusion forces you to focus more intently and increases your hit rate, then do it! If using the negation technique forces you to analyze the answer choices with greater precision, that's important to note. And if it isn't clear what happened on a given question, post it here. Wash/rinse/repeat until you're seeing the desired results.