Critical Reasoning

PS CR Bible is the first literature I see that recommends that CR questions are approached in the layout they are written. For example:

1. work argument
2. read question steam
...

While most other books seem to recommend the opposite, first 2 then 1..

Now, the Bible mention some reasons why this is better. But I still am unsure whether this really is better than reading the steam first?

Reading the steam will tell you what kind of CR it is, thus give you ideas about what to look for. No?

What are you recommendations, anyone who read the argument BEFORE the question steam?

thanks

shud be ur choice both works

Go through below

https://www.beatthegmat.com/read-the-que ... 74472.html

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I also am a big believer in reading the passage first.

Just like for RC, correctly answering the questions for CR will require you to understand the passage fully. You'll need to break it down, finding the conclusion, evidence, and assumptions for the argument. If you read the Q first, then go back to the passage and break it down, chances are you'll have to re-read the Q to remember what it was specifically asking anyway. Better just to do the passage first, then the passage. That way you waste no time, and focus your attention where it should be -- on the passage.

I think that even those of us who don't want to read the Question first need to at least glance at it, because not all GMAT CR questions are Arguments! So, at the very least, read the Question to determine if it's a Strengthen/Weaken/Assumption/Flaw question (about 75% of them are), in which case you are looking for a Conclusion. If it's an Inference or Explain question, you shouldn't look for a Conclusion, because there probably won't be one!

Furthermore, sometimes the Question tells you where to look in the Argument. Complex CR questions can even have 2 Conclusions, and if the Question tells you to, say, Weaken the first one, then the second one is going to be entirely irrelevant to your answer.

I understand those who (like Vivian) prefer to read the Stimulus first, and I too find myself doing that sometimes -- but there's no question that the best focused approach involves at least a quick glance at the Question to determine

1) Is this an Argument or not?
2) Am I looking at the whole thing or just part of it?

AdamKnewton wrote:I think that even those of us who don't want to read the Question first need to at least glance at it, because not all GMAT CR questions are Arguments! So, at the very least, read the Question to determine if it's a Strengthen/Weaken/Assumption/Flaw question (about 75% of them are), in which case you are looking for a Conclusion. If it's an Inference or Explain question, you shouldn't look for a Conclusion, because there probably won't be one!

Furthermore, sometimes the Question tells you where to look in the Argument. Complex CR questions can even have 2 Conclusions, and if the Question tells you to, say, Weaken the first one, then the second one is going to be entirely irrelevant to your answer.

I understand those who (like Vivian) prefer to read the Stimulus first, and I too find myself doing that sometimes -- but there's no question that the best focused approach involves at least a quick glance at the Question to determine

Hi Adam, thanks for you feedback!

A quick glance might be the best and quickest way of approaching the CR problems, but I will try for a while to only do as the Bible recommends. I mean the author actually has a good point mentioning all those disadvantages with reading the question first. E.g. even if I read the question and it say ASSUMPTION, I will usually have to re-read the steam after I have worked the stimuli.

> 1) Is this an Argument or not?
Agree on this, but if one become good at reading understanding stimuli maybe one will figure out whether it will contain a conclusion or not while reading it, no? I don't know maybe I am on deep water here. However, what I can imagine is that reading a steam first might confuse/mislead you in worst case. Again, I am unsure here and I need to try it out

> 2) Am I looking at the whole thing or just part of it?
Could you please clarify here?

If it is a argument, we look for: C + P
If it is a fact set, we look for facts: P only

So exactly what do you mean by whole thing or part above?

Maybe I am doing something weird always reading the whole stimuli, and it might also be another reason why I use to take 2-2.5minutes to answer a CR problem(with writing down C and P).

thanks a bunch!

bkw wrote:
> 1) Is this an Argument or not?
Agree on this, but if one become good at reading understanding stimuli maybe one will figure out whether it will contain a conclusion or not while reading it, no? I don't know maybe I am on deep water here. However, what I can imagine is that reading a steam first might confuse/mislead you in worst case. Again, I am unsure here and I need to try it out

> 2) Am I looking at the whole thing or just part of it?
Could you please clarify here?

If it is a argument, we look for: C + P
If it is a fact set, we look for facts: P only

So exactly what do you mean by whole thing or part above?

Maybe I am doing something weird always reading the whole stimuli, and it might also be another reason why I use to take 2-2.5minutes to answer a CR problem.

thanks a bunch!

First of all, you can't confuse yourself by reading the stem first. You don't read it carefully: you just look at it to say "Weakener" or "Strengthener" or "Inference," and then look at the prompt.

Secondly, part of efficiency (which means increasing both speed and accuracy) is, just as on RC questions or Math questions or SC questions, really attacking the stimulus actively, looking for what you want. To read it actively, you want to be actively looking for the important point (the Conclusion). If you read the whole thing not knowing if there's even going to be a Conclusion, you can't have quite the same aggression towards the question and will generally not be as efficient, imo.

Finally, in terms of reading part/all of the stimulus, you'll almost always read all of it; however, I have seen questions like these (please forgive me, I'm not going to write a whole CR question here to confuse people):

"A spokesman for Company X has argued that their new product is good for (blahblahblah) reasons. However, opponents point out that the new product is actually bad. They draw attention to the (blahblahblah) reasons."

Which of the following would best strengthen the spokesman's position on Company X's new product?"

In this case, the Main Conclusion is the second sentence, the opinion of the opponents. However, the question isn't asking you about that! It's asking you to Strengthen the Spokesman's conclusion, which is the first sentence. As a result, the correct prephrase for your answer would come entirely from the first sentence and would have to be linked to the spokesman's specific reasons (blahblahblah), which might have nothing at all to do with the opponent's given Evidence. Thus, reading the Question Stem first, in the case of questions like these, gives you vital information about where to look, and sometimes even directs you away from the main Conclusion of the Argument itself.