Types of Reasoning in CR

While it's helpful to recognize certain patterns of arguments (causation/correlation, generalization, etc.), I think it's MUCH more helpful to recognize the different CR question types and anticipate what they require of you strategy-wise.

I tend to subdivide CR into:

- Weaken
- Strengthen (ex: https://gmatrockstar.com/2014/01/26/gmat ... the-day-4/)
- Assumption
- Conclusion
- Bold Face
- Inference
- Must Be True
- Cause and Effect
- Paradox/Resolve (ex: https://gmatrockstar.com/2014/01/25/gmat ... uestion-2/)
- Numbers/Percents
- Flaw
- Additional Evidence
- Similar Reasoning
- Complete the Passage
- Method of Reasoning
- Evaluate the Argument

For example, a "Generalization" argument could appear in many of these Q-types! So I'd subdivide based on this or a similar model, break down the argument accordingly, and write down a prediction before reading the answer choices.

Good luck!

Hi [email protected]

Yes, I have purchased this book. It is very informative.

Hi VivianKerr
Thank you for your reply.

I wanted to know about these reasoning types so that i can better understand how to solve parallel reasoning questions.

Thanks

Here’s how you can analyze a similar reading question and get this question type correct!

• Count the Evidence. How many components are there to the premise? The correct answer will always have the same number of pieces of evidence as the original argument.

• Look for Keywords. Words like “might,” “could,” “must,” etc. in the argument set up a relationship between the evidence and conclusion that should be mirrored in the correct answer.

• Identify the Conclusion. What type of conclusion is in the argument? Is the author recommending something, making a prediction, giving a counterargument, etc.? Just as with the evidence, the correct conclusion will mimic the logic of the argument in the paragraph.