Critical Reasoning

Hello All,
I am trying to solve the OG12 CR section. While most of them work like a charm many others just blow me off. I think that CR is only section which does not have set rules to solve the problem or atleast none that I know of. I do not seem to have trouble understanding the problem but I think that the "reasoning" differs entirely from that of author. I think sometimes the answers are fixed just because the author says so or proves them as is.

I have already gone through powerscore CR bible, just to find some tests like the negation test and the variance test. But otherwise I find the exercise there mostly tough.

I really need some help on this, any good meterial or direction to get my reasoning GMATically right would be great.

Thanks

CR is mostly about keeping your brain switched on and working. The mistake most people do is to read the argument/question and then rush immediately to the answer choices looking for something that will look familiar. In many cases, the answer choice will thus seem arbitrary, and rightly so - you haven't spent time trying to figure out what the right answer should look like in the first place.

The key is to spend some time with the argument BEFORE you rush to the answer choices. Ideally, by time you reach the ACs, you already have an idea of what the right answer should do, so you'll be able to
a. Quickly eliminate the wrong answer choices
b. recognize the right one even if it's not EXACTLY what you had in mind, but does the same thing.

A SIMPLE Example:

A friend calls you and says he's at the mall, and why don't you come over. You reply by saying "fine. I'll be there in 10 minutes".
Q: what is the assumption in the above argument?

This simple argument has TONS of assumptions, all of which could act as the right answer choice. In reaching the "conclusion" that you will be there in 10 minutes, you are assuming that:

1) You have a car
2) The car works, and has gas
3) There are no traffic jams between you and the mall
4) You will find an open parking slot at the mall.
5) There will be no earthquakes/volcanic eruptions/ other acts of god within your area in the next 10 minutes.

etc. etc.

All of these are necessary assumptions required to reach the conclusion, but if you rush immediately to the ACs before thinking about the argument, you are likely to eliminate an answer choice such as "Al Queida will not choose to strike at the mall today" as "out of scope" (especially in a more complex question masking the true issue).

All of these Assumptions are just examples stemming from a basic assumption in your argument: when saying "I'll be there in 10 minutes", you are assuming that there is nothing to stop you from reaching the mall in 10 minutes. Thinking about the argument and coming up with a prediction of what the right answer choice should do, in broad terms, BEFORE you go and look for it in the Answer choices, is crucial to accurately figuring out CR questions. Switch on your brain, and give yourself a chance.

Thanks a lot Geva, I think you got me spot on for the fact that I tend to jump to answer and look for something that matches before thinking about a probable answer. But I think that thinking about an answer is more time consuming and head breaking than just looking out for one of five choices.

As with your example itself now how could assume if a terrorist would bomb my plans? Well there could whole lot such assumptions that I can assume and waste my time, if am correct...

RadiumBall wrote:Thanks a lot Geva, I think you got me spot on for the fact that I tend to jump to answer and look for something that matches before thinking about a probable answer. But I think that thinking about an answer is more time consuming and head breaking than just looking out for one of five choices.

As with your example itself now how could assume if a terrorist would bomb my plans? Well there could whole lot such assumptions that I can assume and waste my time, if am correct...

You can't ( and don't have to) assume that a terrorist WILL bomb your plans: in reaching the conclusion that you will reach the mall in 10 minutes, you are assuming that nothing will stop you from doing so. The argument makes the assumption that a terrorist will NOT bomb your plan - if a terrorist did bomb your plan, your conclusion (I will be there in 10 minutes) will be weakened, so the assumption of lack of terrorist activity is a necessary assumption.
EDITED:
the way to deal with the above question will be to stop after reading the argument and think:
1) Premises: My friend is at the mall.
2) conclusion: I will be join him in 10 minutes

3) Assumption: when reaching this conclusion from, from these flimsy premises, what am I assuming? What could stop me from reaching the mall? I'm assuming that there will be no rtaffic problems, no parking problems, no...complications. So the right answer choice needs to be something that says "there are NO complications stopping me from reaching the mall in 10 minutes".
Do this reasoning, and you will be able to see why even an outlandish "there will be no bombing" answer choice does merit at least a hold on elimination.

By not thinking about the argument you are both wasting time and sacrificing accuracy. Your time is wasted on reading the same answer choices again and again, trying to figure out why all five of them seem irrelevant. Your accuracy is sacrificed because you end up choosing something for no reason other than it uses some familiar words. The way to go is to spend 20-30 seconds predicting what the right answer should do, after which you should be able to eliminate the truly irrelevant answer choices quickly and confidently, and recognize the right answer choice with an equal speed an confidence.

You posted because you felt you weren't doing something right. I believe we have highlighted the problem, and now it remains to be seen if you can do something about it. If you keep doing things the same way you've done so far, you are likely to achieve the same results you've done so far.