Critical Reasoning

I always have problem in spoting the right assumptions (always confused with Necessary Vs Sufficient )and pointing out a flaw in reasoning....startegies are higly welocomed....request to take sometime out and respond.

ArpanaAmishi wrote:I always have problem in spoting the right assumptions (always confused with Necessary Vs Sufficient )and pointing out a flaw in reasoning....startegies are higly welocomed....request to take sometime out and respond.

Often, the best way to treat assumption questions is to attack the argument. Try to think what would weaken the argument - that will, in many cases, expose the underlying assumption.

Example: your friend calls you up and says "I'm at the mall. Come and join me".
You reply: "I'll meet you at the entrance in 10 minutes."

What is the assumption underlying the above conclusion?

Let's treat this as a CR question.

Premise: your friend is at the mall.
Conclusion: you will be there in 10 minutes.


Try to attack the argument: what would make you not reach the mall in 10 minutes? Traffic, an earth quake, your car ran out of gas, your car broke down, the fact that you even have a car, etc. - are all possible possible weakening points.

But what is the assumption? what's common denominator here is that when saying "I will be there in 10 minutes", you are assuming that there is nothing stopping you from getting there in 10 minutes.

Keep this in mind when looking at the answer choices, and you already have a bead on what the right answer should do. So even if the right answer doesn't say this in exactly the same words as you expect, you still stand a chance of recognizing that it does the same thing, or goes in the right direction. For example, an answer choice that says "there will be no terrorist attacks in the next 10 minutes" will seem completely irrelevant - the argument did not mention terrorists! - but is actually a specific example of the general assumption of "there is nothing stopping you from reaching the mall in 10 minutes", and thus is relevant indeed.

Thanks, seems better placed now....

Please also suggest something on Flaw in reasoning.

ArpanaAmishi wrote:Thanks, seems better placed now....

Please also suggest something on Flaw in reasoning.

I think I'll need an example of what you call flaw in reasoning questions - sometimes they are simply weaken questions, and are attacked in the same way.

Most of the time they provide the two party conversations then ask the most serious logical flaw in one of the party reasoning. poissible options could be

A) Prejudice the other judegement
b) Use the 'ANY WORD' ambigiously
c) Unjustifiable