For CR, I really recommend adjusting your strategy based on the Question-type you're looking at. For example, we'd approach a "Paradox" and a "Bolded Statement" question in two VERY DIFFERENT ways:
GMAT "Bolded Statement" (or "Boldface") questions ask about the structure of a Critical Reasoning passage. We'd ideally follow a strategy like this:
Step 1 - Review Argument Structure
Arguments have a tendency to follow predictable patterns of organization and are always comprised of a conclusion, premise (or evidence), and assumptions. This is one of the core fundamentals in Critical Reasoning! If you need to go back to previous chapters and practice identifying evidence, assumptions, and conclusions, it would be best to do that before attempting these Bold Face questions.
Step 2 - Recognize the Question Stem
Bolded statement questions are the most easily recognizable Critical Reasoning question-type because have at least one and sometimes two bolded phrases or sentences. The question-stems usually take one of two forms:
"¢ In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
"¢ The first boldface statement has what relationship to the second boldface statement?
Step 3 - Use Symbols to Break Down the Argument
Since we don't have to summarize what the argument is actually saying, we only need to focus on the argument's structure. Identify whether each sentence or clause is a piece of evidence, a conclusion, or a stated assumption using these pre-determined set of symbols. They will help you move through the passage quickly and efficiently:
MC = Main Conclusion (the author's argument or position)
OC = Opposing Conclusion (an argument in opposition to the main conclusion)
F = Fact (basic given information, backstory, premise, etc.)
A = Stated Assumption (think of this as part of the passage that "links" given facts/evidence to stated
conclusions)
E (+) MC = Evidence Supporting Main Conclusion (this is what the author cites to support his conclusion)
E (+) OC = Evidence Supporting Opposing Conclusion (this is evidence that is cited in support of the
Whereas in order to "resolve" a GMAT paradox question, you must choose the answer that best explains how both facts could be true. An incorrect answer for a "Resolve a Paradox" question will often contradict one of the two facts or introduce completely irrelevant information.
Because it's an entirely different question-type, our approach should be entirely different:
Step 1 - Identify the Question-Type. Reading the question-stem, it should be fairly obvious when you're looking at a paradox question.
Step 2 - Bullet-point the Paradoxical Facts. There might be more than two pieces of evidence in the passage, but there will only be two contradictory facts that need resolving. Identify what those are, then write them on your scratch pad in shorthand. It will help you visualize the paradox, and come up with your own ideas for how it can be resolved.
Step 3 - Write Down a Prediction. Just like you must do with most other Critical Reasoning question-types, come up with your own pre-phrased answer BEFORE looking at the answer choices. The correct answer may not be an exact match, but you'll recognize it faster if you're spent a few seconds anticipating what it should look like.
Step 4 - Analyze the Answer Choices. For each choice, ask yourself: does this explain how both facts are true? Only one choice will answer "yes" to that question! Remember, if a choice merely explains one of the facts, it is not the correct answer.
Hope that makes sense -- I think you should list ALL the CR question-types and get really clear with yourself HOW you're approaching each one. What does the correct answer for that question-type typically "look" like?
