0

Cjhjjbjbhaptennnnvcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gg Chapter1ggggg

Cdsdjhjjbjbhaptennnnvcnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
ggggggggggggggggggggggggg
Chapter1ggggg

Chapterngchdjfusssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
sssssssssss

1
 Preface
Analysis of attempted exams reveals that most
aspirants never attempt questions that come under
the broad topic of critical reasoning. For puzzles and
seating arrangement, there seems to be a set
methodology or technique for attempting the
question, but many aspirants are very confused when
it comes to critical reasoning questions. In our
analysis, this is because no source has provided the
aspirants with a simple and efficient blueprint or
methodology to tackle these questions. Also, some
aspirants seem to think that questions in these topics
do not have any objective answer but are rather
answered only according to the author’s point of view.
This is not true.
This eBook is our attempt at solving this problem. In
this book, we will try to provide you with a simple, step
by step, logically derived structure that you can use to
solve any critical reasoning question. Once you do
learn the structure, you will be surprised to see how
easy it is to approach critical reasoning questions and
we assure that you will find answering critical
reasoning questions more valuable for your time spent
as compared to other reasoning ability & computer
aptitude questions.

2
 Chapter 1

What is an Argument?
What are its components?
The General format for critical reasoning questions usually contains
a set of statements, followed by questions based on those sets of
statements. This set of statements given, based on which we answer
the questions, is known as the argument.
Usually, the arguments given in critical reasoning questions are
made up of smaller building blocks which are known as the
components of the argument.

For our understanding we can simplify an argument into its principal

components.
These basic i.e., principal components of an argument are:
i) Background
ii) Premise
iii) Assumption
iv) Conclusion

Background:

The background of an argument are simple facts, claims or other

sentences that provide context to the argument. Usually, the
background of an argument is information that leads to the
premise(s) of the argument or provides context to the premise(s) of
the argument. The background is not absolutely necessary to lead to
the conclusion nor do all arguments contain background
information.

Premise:

The premise of an argument are the foundational facts or claims

upon which the conclusion of the argument depends primarily. All

3
arguments must definitely contain one or more premise(s). The
premise is, in essence, the most important building block of an
argument.

Assumption:

Assumptions are the missing link in the chain of logic in an argument.

You can think of them as premises that are not stated explicitly. For
arguments that do have an implicit assumption, the conclusion
stated in that argument often becomes invalid without identifying
the appropriate assumption. Often, premise(s) together with
assumption(s) complete the logic in the argument and lead to the
conclusion. Most although not all arguments contain one or more
assumption(s).
To explain it from the author’s point of view, assumptions can be
viewed as premises that the author knows for sure, but the author
assumes that the listener knows it in spite of the fact that the author
had not stated it explicitly.
(Here “Author” refers to the person making the argument.)

Conclusion: -

Conclusion is essentially the main claim, opinion, prediction,

hypothesis or assertion of the author. Conclusions are always
supported by at least one premise and in certain cases, by the
assumption implicit in the argument as well.
From the author’s point of view, the conclusion of an argument is
what the author is trying to establish or prove in the argument.

Explaining with example: -

Now to get a deeper understanding of each of these components, let

us understand each of these components with an example:

4
Example 1:

Argument: Surya went out to buy milk and he noticed that the tar
on the road was somewhat molten. Hence, he knew that it must be a
really hot day today.

Let us dissect this argument into smaller parts for ease of

understanding. Through this, we will also understand the
components, or say the ‘building blocks’ of an argument.

i) Surya went out to buy milk

ii) When he went out, he had noticed that the tar on the road was
somewhat molten.
iii) Hence, he knew that it must be a really hot day today

i) “Surya went out to buy milk” -

What does this statement tell us?

It tells us that a person named Surya went outside to buy milk. This
statement is a fact. But by reading the full argument we see that the
commodity he purchases is irrelevant. He could have gone out to buy
something else and it wouldn’t really change the core of the
argument. So, we can say that this statement only provides us with a
context for the argument.
Hence, we say that this statement is the background of the argument
at hand.

ii) “and he noticed that the tar on the road was somewhat
molten”
What does this statement tell us?

This statement seems a little different from the first one. It tells us
that Surya noticed that the tar on the road was somewhat molten.
This is a fact, but the details in this statement are not irrelevant and
cannot be substituted without changing the core of the argument.
(We will see why when we analyse the last statement)

5
Such statements are known as premises. It gives us a fact that is
central to the argument. We also notice that the next sentence starts
with the word “Hence” ....

iii) “Hence, he knew that It must be a really hot day today.”

What does this statement tell us?

It tells us that Surya knew for sure that it must have been a really hot
day. Such a statement is known as the conclusion in an argument.
This is the point that the author is trying to establish through the
argument.
Looking carefully, we notice that the sentence starts with the word
“hence”. This means that he had come to this deduction on the basis
of the previous statement -> i.e., the fact that the tar on the road was
somewhat molten. This leads us to the assumption implicit in the
argument.

iv) Assumption:

Let us take a closer look once again at the premise and the conclusion
in the argument.

Premise: “Surya noticed that the tar on the road was somewhat molten”

 Fact: Tar on road is slightly molten

Conclusion: “Hence, he knew that It must be a really hot day today.”

 Conclusion: Hence, temperature of the day must be really high

Here we see that the argument does not feel complete.

Now, if we have another premise stating that “Tar melts only on
really hot days” the whole argument seems to make a lot more sense.
This premise that we constructed in order for the argument to be
logically more robust, is known as the assumption implicit in the
argument.

6
Illustration:

I: When premise is followed by conclusion with a missing link in the

chain of logic

II: After identifying the appropriate assumption which shall fill the
missing link in logic that leads to the conclusion.

Let us analyse another example Argument, but this time, let us

search for each of the components in the argument instead of
analysing each statement and then deciding what part they serve in
the argument.

Example 2:

Argument: The mayor of the city addressed the crowd on the 121st
birth Anniversary of Periyar. During his address the mayor proposed
renaming the city’s main bus stand as Periyar bus-stand and also
revealed the plan of making bus travel free for all adult women. He
envisioned that this would significantly improve the economic status
of lower-class working women.

7
(Try to identify the components of this argument yourself before
proceeding further)

i) Background:

As we just learned, the background of an argument is

information/facts/claims that do not serve any purpose in reaching
the conclusion of the argument. The background only provides
context to the argument, usually contextualising the premise.

In accordance with the above definition of background of an

argument, which statements do you think fit this definition?
Look at these statements:
“The mayor of the city addressed the crowd on the 121st birth
Anniversary of Periyar. During his address the mayor proposed
renaming the city’s main bus stand as Periyar bus-stand”

These statements are facts, no doubt. But when you go through the
entire argument, it becomes clear that these facts serve no purpose
in the argument. The conclusion has no connection with this
information. The only purpose they serve is in providing context to
the premise of the argument. The mayor announced a scheme, and
these statements gave background to the announcement. Hence, we
may safely say that the above statements form the background of the
given argument.

ii) Premise:

Premises are also statements that contain facts/claims or other

forms of solid information. But as we learned, premise serves a
central purpose in any argument, forming the core of the argument,
and often plays a critical role in analysing/reaching the conclusion.

In accordance with the above definition, which of the statements

given in the argument can be identified as premises?

8
Look at this part of the argument:
“...and also revealed the plan of making bus travel free for all adult
women.”

Essentially, on the 121st birth anniversary of Periyar (given in the

background) the mayor revealed a plan of making bus travel free for
all adult women.
This statement is a premise as it fits our definition. When you go
through the entire argument, you clearly see that this statement i.e.,
the premise is very relevant in context of the conclusion.

iii) Conclusion:

Conclusion is essentially the main claim, prediction or assertion of

the author. We learned that from the author’s point of view, the
conclusion of an argument is what the author is trying to establish or
prove in the argument.

In accordance with the above definition, which of the statements in

the argument can be identified as the conclusion?

Look at this statement:

“He envisioned that this would significantly improve the economic
status of lower-class working women.”

The above statement seeks to establish one of the main claims of the
mayor. Also, the statement clearly lacks meaning without the
preceding statement. This can be inferred through the use of the
word “this”. Hence, the above statement proceeds from the premise
given before it. This indicates that the statement is most likely a
conclusion in accordance with our definition.

9
iv) Assumption:

Assumptions are the missing link in the chain of logic. Identifying the
appropriate assumption implicit in the argument often strengthens
the conclusion of the author.
In accordance with this definition, we need to analyse the premise
and the conclusion and find the missing link in this chain.

Premise: Bus travel made free for adult women

Conclusion: Economic status of lower-class working women will

improve.

When you consider both these statements together, what do you

think will improve the connection between the two statements?
Suppose you also got additional information that: “most lower-class
working women use bus service as their primary form of transport.”?

Would this statement connect the premise and the conclusion?

The answer is: yes, this statement would certainly connect the
premise and conclusion by closing the gap of logic. But we can also
think of a few other statements which may serve the same purpose.

For example, suppose you are told that “20% of the monthly income
of working-class women is spent on bus tickets” then this statement
would also serve the exact same purpose. I.e., connect the premise
and the conclusion in a logically appropriate way.
If 20% of your income is no longer required for purchasing bus
tickets, you may use that money for other purposes and hence this
will certainly improve your economic status. You can think of few
more similar statements that may close the gap of logic between the
premise and conclusion and all of those statements shall be logically
appropriate assumptions.

10
Now you might be thinking that if you can cook up multiple possible
assumptions that are appropriate and consistent for the given
argument, then how can there be only one correct assumption?
In your exams, you will not be required to draw out an assumption
from scratch. You’ll only be required to identify the appropriate
assumption out of a given set of options. So, you need to train
yourself in identifying the missing logic between the given
premise(s) and the given conclusion.

Most often, only one among the given options is going to fit this
criteria and so you’ll need to identify that assumption as your
answer.

Note: - Sometimes you may be asked to find the most appropriate

assumption where 2 or more options may possibly fix some of the
logical gaps between the premise and the conclusion, but one among
those options shall fix most of the logical inconsistencies between
the premise and the conclusion and this shall be your answer. We
shall take a deeper look into such questions in later chapters on this
eBook)

i) The premise alone attempts to support the conclusion.

ii) The implicit assumption joins with the premise(s) giving stronger
support to the conclusion.
11
Identifying the primary components of the argument is the first step
in learning to solve critical reasoning questions. Correctly answering
most of the questions asked shall primarily depend upon identifying
the various components and the interaction between the various
components of the given argument.
Critical reasoning questions can be asked in multiple ways. We will
look at this in detail in further chapters. For now, let us fine tune our
ability to identify each of the components of the argument.

Given below are 5 sample arguments. Take this as an exercise and

try to mark out each statement and identify what purpose they serve
in the argument. These arguments shall once again be used in later
chapters to illustrate other different concepts.

Note:- It is NOT necessary that all arguments contain Background or

assumptions.

A1:
Argument:
The maths teacher entered class A at 9:30 on Monday morning. He
started checking the notebooks of students and the first 5 students
he checked had not completed the homework. He was very
disappointed and complained that class B students were much more
sincere and disciplined even though few students in class B had also
not completed their homework.

A2:
Argument:
From February, Mohan started waking up early in the morning every
day and started the day by drinking 1 glass of warm water mixed
with lemon and honey and continued this routine for 3 months, but
he became very disappointed after checking his body weight on the
1st of May.

12
A3:
Argument:
In company X, the annual bonus of the workers was decided based
on the quality of their work, which would be gauged on the basis of
marks awarded to their work by the respective team leads each
month, and also based on the volume of their work. It was a common
phenomenon that usually the ones who received higher bonus
amounts also had more than 95% office attendance. Hence, we can
be sure that attendance plays the most important role in
determining the annual bonus of workers.

A4:
Argument:
The police commissioner of city K directed to reduce the night patrol
of police officers from 568 patrol vehicles to 126 patrol vehicles
every night. He claimed that this decision was to reduce wastage of
police resources since city K’s current crime rate at night times was
very negligible.

A5:
Argument:
The quality of philosophy and philosophical literature has never
been as poor as it is in current times. The very busy lifestyle of an
average person living in today’s world, with half the day spent on
work and most of the remaining hours spent consuming brain
dulling content on the internet, makes them spend very little, if at all
any time, in laying back and pondering upon the deeper meaning of
things and life in general, leading to the dearth of philosophy and
hence philosophical literature.

13
Solutions: -

(Arguments A4 and A5 have been solved and explained in detail in

subsequent chapters, and so here we shall deconstruct only
Argument A1, A2 and A3)

Argument A1:
Background: The date and time of the teacher entering are
background information
They serve no purpose in the argument other than providing context
to the premise
Premises:
i) The first 5 notebooks the teacher checked in class A did not have
the homework assignment written in them.
ii) Few students in class B had also not completed their homework
Conclusion: Class B students are more sincere and disciplined than
class A students.
Implicit Assumption: Any assumption that connects the premise
such that one may think class B students are indeed more disciplined
and sincere than class A students.
For eg: Suppose only 1 out of the first 5 notebooks the teacher
checked in class B had incomplete homework.

Argument A2:
Premises:
i) From February, Mohan started waking up early in the morning
every day and started the day by drinking 1 glass of warm water
mixed with lemon and honey and continued this routine for 3
months
Conclusion:
Mohan was very disappointed after checking his body weight on the
1st of May.
Implicit Assumption: It is expected that one sees a change in their
body weight when following the routine that Mohan followed from
February.

14
Argument A3:
Premises:
i) In company X, the annual bonus of the workers was decided based
on the work quality and work volume,
ii) The work quality would be calculated on the basis of marks
awarded to the work by the respective team leads each month
iii) Usually, workers who received higher bonuses had more than
95% attendance.
Conclusion: Attendance plays the most important role in
determining the annual bonus of workers.

Few general-rules and shortcuts that may help identify the

components of an argument: -
The components of an argument need to be identified based on the
logical definitions of the said components no doubt, but sometimes
we may save ourselves some time if we make use of certain general
rules and shortcuts. Do keep in mind that these general rules or
shortcuts may not hold true for all arguments but are rather useful
tools which may reduce the time of solving certain critical reasoning
questions.

Structuring of an argument:
Generally speaking, the argument is presented such that, if there is
any background information, it is given in the first few sentences,
followed by the premise(s) of the argument and the last sentence or
last few sentences shall be the conclusion of the argument. To
summarise:
Background (followed by) ➔ Premise(s) (followed by) ➔
Conclusion.

But let us see why this general rule is not universally applicable with
the help of a small example.

15
Example Argument:
Case I (following the general rule)
After dropping off his children at school on the way, the shopkeeper
arrived at his shop and opened the shop. As soon as he opened his
shop, the shopkeeper noticed that most bread packets were half
bitten or chewed up. Immediately he called his shop manager
furiously and asked him how he could have forgotten to seal the rat
hole.
After carefully analysing this argument, we can deconstruct the
argument as follows:
Background: The shopkeeper dropped off his children at school and
then went to open his shop.
Premise: Upon opening his shop he realised that many bread packets
in the shop were chewed up.
Conclusion: Hence, the shopkeeper concluded that his store manager
had forgotten to seal the rat hole.
Obviously, the argument is presented in the same structure as the
general rule dictates. I.e., First comes the background, then it is
followed by the premise and then finally comes the conclusion.
Now try to read the same argument, presented in a slightly different
way.

Case II (In contradiction with the general rule)

The shopkeeper furiously called his shop manager and asked him
how he could have forgotten to seal the rat hole, moments after
opening the shop and noticing that many bread packets were bitten
or chewed up. The shopkeeper had opened the shop after dropping
off his children at school on the way to the shop.

Analyse this argument carefully.

Have any of the components changed?
Can we consider the last sentence of this argument as the
conclusion?
Can we consider the first sentence of this argument as the
background?

16
The answer is NO for both. Obviously, the background, premise and
conclusion of this argument (case II) is same as that of the one above
it (Case I)

This is why the general rule which applies for the structuring of
arguments must not be blindly trusted or followed.

Keywords/ Signal words and other markers: -

Arguments often contain words or phrases that ‘signal’ the
intentions of that particular sentence/statement. Such
words/phrases are known as signal words or keywords.
For example, conclusion statements often need to make it clear that
the conclusion proceeds from one or more of the premises given in
the argument. In order to accomplish this, words or phrases such as
“Hence”, “therefore”, “as a consequence” “consequently” and etc are
used. In certain cases when the conclusion is an unexpected result
leading from the premise, words/phrases such as “despite”, “in spite
of” are used to signal the unexpected result. These words signal that
the conclusion is derived from the information given in the
sentences preceding it.

(Example: A3)
In case no such words are present in the argument, then find the
sentence right before which such words will fit most appropriately.

Similarly, if there is any numerical or qualitative data given within

an argument, it is most likely given within the premise of the
argument. This is just a probabilistic assumption, since premise
statements are the ones most likely to contain data.
(Example: A4)

17
NOTE: -
These are only shortcuts that may possibly save time in identifying
the components of an argument. These methods are neither
applicable for all questions nor are these methods guaranteed to
work always. Hence, you should apply this method carefully with the
proper understanding that careful analysis of each individual
statement of the argument needs to be done even after the
application of this method.

18
 Chapter 2

Critical Reasoning Questions

and How to approach them
Ok! I get it! An argument is a set of statements that may consist of
Background information, Premise(s), implicit assumption(s) and
conclusion.
But what kind of questions are asked in Critical reasoning? How
do I approach these questions?
I’m sure I will not just be asked to identify the components of an
argument in the exam!

Yes, identifying the components of an argument are not going to be

the only questions asked in critical reasoning. But solving any critical
reasoning question will require you to identify those components in
the first place -> Hence the introduction.
In this chapter, we will take a look at some common types of
argument at first and later we will look at some of the ‘types’ of
questions that may be asked out of these arguments.

Please keep in mind that the type of questions listed in this eBook is
not exhaustive. Critical reasoning questions are confined to only two
principles:
i) There must an argument and the argument must contain at least 1
premise
ii) The questions can be asked based on the role played by or the
interaction between the various statements/components of the
argument.

As long as a CR question follows these two principles, it is valid and

hence there is no theoretical limit to how a CR question can be
classified.

19
That said, let us first look at the methodology of solving CR questions
with an example. Let us take a simple argument and answer a simple
question, the concept for which we have already looked at in the
introduction part.

Argument A6:
After his poor performance in 2016, Raftar Singh doubled the time
he spent training, and appointed Mr.X as his coach. Hence, it was
expected that Raftar would at least reach the quarter-finals of the
tournament this time.

Question:

Which among the following is an assumption implicit in the

above argument?
a) Raftar had improved his lung capacity and stamina in the last 3
years.
b) Most of the other players in the tournament spent less than 3
hours training.
c) Raftar trained without a coach before 2016 and Mr X is one of the
best coaches of the game.
d) Raftar had lost passion for the game in 2016.

Now, let us carefully and methodically answer this question.

Step 1:
Deconstruct the argument into its components.

“After his poor performance in 2016, Raftar Singh doubled the time
he spent training, and appointed Mr.X as his coach.”

i) Raftar performed poorly in 2016

ii) After 2016, Raftar doubled his training time
iii) After 2016, Raftar hired Mr.X as his coach.
After carefully going through the entire argument, we can see that
the information in statement (i) only provides background to the
argument.
20
Information provided in statement (ii) and (iii) seem to play a more
central role to the argument, so for now let us consider these two as
premises of the argument.

“Hence, it was expected that Raftar would at least reach the quarter-
finals of the tournament this time.”

This statement clearly seems to indicate something that the author

wants to establish. It is the prediction of the author that is based on
the information given before it. Here it is said that Raftar is expected
to at least reach the quarter final stage, which means, he may even
reach the semi-finals or finals, but bare minimum he is expected to
reach the quarter-finals. Considering this along with the tone of the
statement, we can say that the expectation is that Raftar performs
very well in this tournament.
So, this must be the conclusion of the argument.

So, we have the following:

Background: Raftar performed poorly in 2016

Premise 1: After 2016 Raftar doubled his training time

Premise 2: After 2016 Raftar started getting coached by Mr.X

Conclusion: It is expected that Raftar will at least reach the quarter-

finals.

Step 2:
Ask yourself this:

a) What is the question that I need to answer?

In this particular case, you are asked to find the assumption implicit
in the above argument.
As we have already learnt, assumptions can be understood as hidden
premises that help better connect the given premises with the
conclusion.

21
b) What must I find to answer this question?
➔You need to find the premise(s) of the argument and the
conclusion of the argument and hence find the missing link of logic
between the two.

We have already found out the premises of the argument and the
conclusion of the argument. Now we only need to find the missing
link of logic, i.e., the assumption implicit in the argument.

Step 3:
Examine each answer option one by one and eliminate the least
likely options.

Option (a)
Raftar had improved his lung capacity and stamina in the last 3
years.

If this assumption were true, all we would know is that Raftar has
better lung capacity and stamina than before. But we have no reason
to believe that the game or sport that Raftar plays requires a high
level of lung capacity or stamina. Hence, we cannot say with any
certainty that improvement in these parameters would improve his
performance in the game.
This assumption fails to fill the logical gap between the premises and
the conclusion.
 eliminate option (a)

22
Option (b)
Most of the other players in the tournament spent less than 3
hours training.

This assumption is very similar to the previous one. If this were true,
we would know that most players spent less than 3 hours training.
But we do not know the exact time that Raftar spends training to
compare the two quantities. Hence, this assumption also fails to
support the conclusion or fill the logical gap.
 eliminate option (b)

Option (c)
Raftar trained without a coach before 2016 and Mr X is one of
the best coaches of the game.

If a player uses a coach, then it is very likely that he improves his

skills in the sport. If this assumption were true, then not only is
Raftar getting coached and hence possibly improving his skills, but
he is getting coached by one of the best! So, it is highly likely that
Raftar significantly improves in his sport and consequently reach the
final stages of the tournament (Quarter-finals are usually among the
final stages of sports tournaments). This assumption seems very
consistent with the argument and certainly seems to support the
conclusion as well as fill the logical gap between the premises and
the conclusion.
Let us keep this option in mind and proceed to the final option before
deciding upon the correct answer.

Option (d)
Raftar had lost passion for the game in 2016.

This option is probably the easiest to eliminate out of the given 4.

This assumption has almost no relevance with the conclusion of the
argument and hence we can safely eliminate this.
 eliminate option (d)

23
This leaves option (c) as the only option which did not get eliminated
and we also see that option (c) appropriately fills the logical gap
between the premises and the conclusion.
Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
In the below image, the methodology used for solving the above
question has been summarised.

24
This same 3-step method can be applied to solve most of the critical
reasoning questions.

Step 1 and Step 3 shall remain the same while obviously there will
be few differences in the specifics of Step 2.
This is because the question, and what needs to be found to answer
the question are not always the same.

The general Blueprint can be summarised as follows:

With this General Blueprint in mind, let us take a look at some other
commonly asked question types.

25
Strengthening/Weakening an argument:

To get a basic idea:

In strengthening the argument type question, an argument along
with answer options will be given and you need to pick that option
which strengthens the conclusion of the given argument.
The correct option shall either be a piece of information that
supports the already given premise(s) or shall be a fact that
strengthens the assumption implicit in the argument.

In weakening the argument type question, you need to find the

option that contradicts or raises doubts regarding the conclusion of
the argument.
The correct option shall either be a piece of information that
contradicts the already given premise(s) or shall be a fact that
contradicts/questions/weakens the assumption implicit in the
argument.

To get a better understanding, let us revisit argument A4 which was

presented earlier in the eBook.

1) Weaken the argument

Argument: The police commissioner of city K directed to reduce the

night patrol of police officers from 568 patrol vehicles to 126 patrol
vehicles every night. He claimed that this decision was to reduce
wastage of police resources since city K’s current crime rate at night
times was very negligible.

Question:
Which among the given below statements, if true, weaken the
argument of the police commissioner?
a) The 126 Patrol vehicles are all in top condition.
b) The crime rate at city J did not reduce after increasing night patrol.
c) Seeing a higher number of patrol vehicles in a locality strongly
discourages criminals from committing crime.

26
d) 3 months after the reduction of patrol vehicles, the crime rate was
still very low in the city.
➔ Now, let us solve this question using the 3-step method we have
just discussed.

Step 1: Deconstruct the argument into its components

Premise 1: City K’s current night crime night is very low

Conclusion: Hence, high number police night patrol vehicles are not
needed. (The commissioner claims he wants to “reduce wastage of
police resources”)
Premise 2: Patrol vehicles reduced from 568 to 126.
Implicit assumption: Additional patrol vehicles do not serve any
purpose but are only wasted resources.

Step 2:
i) What is the question?
ii) What needs to be found to answer the question?

Ok, now we are dealing with a new type of question and here the
specifics of Step 2 are new. So let us look at it in detail.

The question we are asked here is, among the given options, which
one weakens the argument of the police commissioner.

The commissioner makes his argument on the basis of only one

premise (Premise 1).
 The fact that the current night crime rate of city X is low.
And an assumption:
 that the additional patrol vehicles are not making any change to
the scenario.
And so, he directs to reduce the number of patrol vehicles under the
same assumption.

So, in essence, if we are able to contradict or counter any of the

components on the basis of which the commissioner bases his
argument, then we can effectively weaken his argument.
27
Since we are told bluntly that the night crime rate is indeed low, that
is, we are not given a speculation or a possibility, we are told directly
that the crime rate is low, hence we cannot attack the premise on the
basis of which the commissioner bases his argument.
So, the only component of the argument that we can attack (hence,
weaken) is the assumption: “The additional patrol vehicles are only
a waste of resources”

Now we need to examine each option and find which among the
given options contradicts this assumption.

Step 3:
Examine each answer option one by one and start by eliminating the
least likely options.

a) The 126 Patrol vehicles are all in top condition.

The above option tells us about the quality of the remaining patrol
vehicles. But this information serves no purpose in strengthening or
weakening the assumption and hence the argument in any way.
Hence, we can eliminate option (a) and proceed.

b) The crime rate at city J did not reduce after increasing night patrol.

This statement tells us about another city J. We have no reason to

believe that happenings in city J have any relation or effect on the
happenings in city K. These two cities could be neighbouring cities
or could be cities in two different countries.
Hence, this statement has no impact on our argument.
So, we can eliminate option (b) as well.

c) Seeing a higher number of patrol vehicles in a locality strongly

discourages criminals from committing crime.

This statement certainly seems to hit at the assumption implicit in

the argument!

28
The commissioner seems to assume that since the crime rate is low,
the high number of police patrols are just wasted resources. But if
the situation was such that the low crime rate is itself a result of the
high number of police patrols, then the commissioners’ assumption
is weakened.
The above option tells us that higher number of police patrols in an
area discourages criminals from committing crime -> i.e. More police
patrols can lead to lower crime rates.
So, this option could most likely be the correct answer!
Let us keep this in mind and proceed to the next option.

d) 3 months after the reduction of patrol vehicles, the crime rate was
still very low in the city.

The above statement tells us that the crime rate remained very low,
even after the reduction of police patrols.
If the crime rate remains low, even after reduction of patrolling, then
indeed the additional patrol vehicles were a waste of resources as
they did not have any additional impact.
But this only strengthens the argument of the police commissioner!
It does not weaken the argument, which is what we are asked to find.
Hence, option (c) is the right answer.

2) Strengthen the argument:

Let us look at the same argument A4 but with a slight change in the
question and the answer options.

Argument: The police commissioner of city K directed to reduce the

night patrol of police officers from 568 patrol vehicles to 126 patrol
vehicles every night. He claimed that this decision was to reduce
wastage of police resources since city K’s current crime rate at night
times was very negligible.

29
Question:
Which among the given below statements, if true, strengthen the
argument of the police commissioner?
a) The 126 Patrol vehicles are all in top condition.
b) The crime rate at city J did not reduce after increasing night patrol.
c) The removed 442 patrol vehicles were used for fire and disaster
rescue operations with great success.
d) 3 months after the reduction of patrol vehicles, the crime rate was
still very low in the city.

 Let us directly skip to step 2 this time.

The question asks us to find the option which strengthens the given
argument.
The argument uses the premise that the crime rate was very
negligible and comes to the conclusion that extra police patrol are
wasted resources.
Hence, we need to find an answer that strengthens this flow of logic.
And since the premise is fixed in this case, we need an answer that
supports/strengthens the assumption.
The assumption is that Additional police patrols have no impact on
the reduction of crime rate. (Since the additional patrols are
considered as wasted police resources)

Examine and eliminate:

We can straight away eliminate options (a) and (b) for the same
reasons as we did in the previous question. Neither of them impact
the argument in any way. They neither strengthen nor weaken any
part of the argument.

Coming to option (c)

“The removed 442 patrol vehicles were used for fire and disaster
rescue operations with great success.”
This statement tells us that the removed patrol vehicles were used
for other purposes with great effect. Ok! That’s good! The additional
vehicles are now being used productively. But this doesn’t tell us

30
anything about the usefulness of these vehicles when they were used
for night patrols.
This is a nice answer trap where we are led towards the current
usefulness of the vehicles, making us mistakenly assume that the
vehicles were previously not useful. Our correct answer must
directly address the usefulness of the vehicles when they were used
for night patrols.
Hence, this is not the correct answer.

Option (d) is the right answer, as it tells us that the crime rate of
the city remained more or less that same (remained very low) even
after the reduction of patrol vehicles. This directly strengthens the
assumption implicit in the argument, that the additional police
patrols were indeed a waste of resources!

To Summarise:
(Finding the correct answer for questions related to
strengthening/weakening an argument)
If the argument is primarily built upon the premise, then
 Find the answer option that directly attacks/supports the
premise
If the argument is primarily built upon an assumption, then
 Find the answer option that attacks/supports the assumption.

Note:-
In case you are asked to find the option that most severely
strengthens/weakens the argument, and out of the given options,
more than one option seems to be appropriate i.e., more than one
options seems to strengthen/weaken the argument, then, the option
that directly strengthens/weakens the assumption shall be the
correct answer.
This is because the foundation of most arguments lies in the
assumption implicit in the argument. Hence, if one among the
options impacts the premise and another option impacts the
assumption, then the latter shall be the option that most severely
impacts (strengthens/weakens) the argument.

31
The 3-step method to solving CR questions, can be applied to
Strengthen/weaken the argument questions as follows:

32
Inference Questions:

First of all, let us understand the definition of inference before

proceeding with this question type.
A quick google search will tell you that inference is defined as “A
conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning”

But for our purposes, i.e., in the context of critical reasoning

questions, inference shall be defined as: A piece of information that
must be true, according to the premises given in the argument.

In Strengthen the argument type questions, the correct answer

supports the given argument.
In inference questions the correct answer is supported by the given
argument.

In essence, inference is something that can be considered to be true

based on the information given in an argument and can be derived
out of the given information in an argument.

To put it in another way, inference questions are logically very

similar to syllogism questions.
In syllogism, we are given a set of statements, and the correct answer
is one which is supported by all the given set of statements and is
definitely true according to the given statements. Similarly, in
inference questions, the correct inference is something that is
supported by all the components of the given argument and is
definitely true according to the given argument.

Let us understand inference through an example.

Argument A7:
After the successful campaign by SoloPay, an UPI application, many
more shopkeepers in the city installed QR boards in their shops to
enable payment through UPI. Although the volume of UPI

33
transactions in most of the shops increased after this, the overall
profits and overall volume of transactions in most shops remained
the same.

Question:
Which among the following can be inferred from this argument?
a) UPI transactions tax the shopkeeper a certain amount for each
transaction
b) Some customers who used to pay through other methods
switched to UPI payment
c) Most shopkeepers made no improvement to their business
methods.
➔ Now let us solve this question using our same 3-step method.

Step 1: Deconstruct the argument into its components.

Premise 1: More shopkeepers in the city installed QR boards
Premise 2: Volume of UPI transactions in shops increased
Premise 3: Overall profit of most shops remained same
Premise 4: Overall volume of transactions in most shops remained
same

Note:- This argument is entirely composed of premises. There are no

implicit assumptions nor is there any conclusion given in this
argument.

Step 2:
i) What is the question?
ii) What needs to be found to answer the question?

The question requires us to find the answer option that can be

considered certainly true based on the information given in the
argument.
We need to find which among the given options is a logical result of
the premises given in the argument.

34
Step 3: Examine each answer option one by one and start by
eliminating the least likely options.

a) UPI transactions tax the shopkeeper a certain amount for each

transaction

 We are told nothing about taxation in the argument. This option

leads us into thinking that the lack of increase in profits despite
the increase in UPI transactions are a result of taxation for UPI
transactions. But we have no premise in the argument that
supports this. Hence, option (a) can be eliminated.

b) Some customers who used to pay through other methods

switched to UPI payment

 Premise 4 tells us that the overall volume of transactions in the

shops remained the same. Premise 2 tells us that the volume of
UPI transactions in the shops increased. Hence, it can be logically
concluded that few persons who used other methods of
transactions had switched to UPI transactions.

Let us keep this option for now, but also proceed and check the next
and last option.

c) Most shopkeepers made no improvement to their business

methods.

 We are told that the profits made by most shops remained the
same. It is very much possible that most shopkeepers made no
improvements to their business methods, but we do not have any
premise in the given argument that supports this hypothesis.
Hence, we eliminate option (c) as well.
This leaves option (b) as the correct answer.

Note:- In inference questions, the answer options often try to trap

you using real-world logical traps. Many options may seem quite
obvious or possible based on real-world logic, but remember!
35
Inference is something that must be derived out of the information
given in the argument alone. It must not be speculated or derived
using outside or ‘real-world’ logic.
This kind of a trap is a common trap set in most inference questions!

The 3-step method to solving CR questions, applied to inference

questions can be illustrated as follows:

36
Cause and Effect Relationship:

In CR, certain questions may be asked based on the structure of the

argument.
Determining whether a certain statement acts as a cause, or
represents the effect of a certain cause is one type of question that
may be asked based on the structure.
Sometimes, you may be given two statements or two pieces of
information derived from the argument and questions may be asked
regarding the relationship between the two statements or the two
derived pieces of information, often of a cause-effect nature.

To get a basic understanding, Event A is said to be a cause of event B,

if and only if event A is necessary and sufficient for event B to occur.
If an effect is a logical consequence of the said cause -> then the pair
of events are said to be a cause-effect pair.

Consider this situation:

Surya takes his motorcycle to the service center and complains that
his vehicle stopped abruptly while on the way to the office. Now if
the mechanic says that the cause of the vehicle stopping was because
the wheels stopped rotating, then what would be your response?

Obviously, you would think that the mechanic is a fool! Of course, any
vehicle would come to a stop if the wheels stopped rotating, right?
Here, we are interested in the reason that was specific to this case
i.e. Why did Surya's motorcycle come to a stop abruptly?
Maybe there is a problem with the fuel delivery pipe. Maybe the
engine oil was too old and hence the engine overheated and stopped.
Or maybe even Surya forgot to fill petrol!

This example was to illustrate the point that when talking about the
cause of an event, we are interested in the principal cause.
The principal cause can be defined as the main and most
important reason for the occurrence of the effect in discussion.

37
Now that we have an understanding of the key terms and basic
concepts relevant to this question type, let us try to get a better
understanding of these types of questions through an example:

Argument A8:

After discovering that the eastern lands had much more

groundwater compared to the western lands, violent clashes ensued
between the two main land-owning communities in the village, due
to the unequal distribution of the eastern lands between the
communities and the local police imposed a curfew, hoping to curb
the violence. The clashes had received state-wide media coverage.

Question:
Which among the following is the principal cause of the curfew
imposed?
a) Unequal groundwater distribution in the village
b) Violent clashes between the village communities
c) State-wide media coverage of the clashes

Let us solve this question using our 3-step method

Step 1: Deconstruct the argument into its components.

Premise 1: Eastern lands have more groundwater than western
lands
Premise 2: Eastern lands not equally distributed between different
communities.
Premise 3: Violent clashes take place between the main land-owning
communities.
Premise 4: Police imposed a curfew in the village.
Premise 5: Violent clashes in the village received state-wide media
coverage

Step 2:
i) What is the question?
ii) What needs to be found to answer the question?

38
The question asks us to find the main and most important reason
that led to the local police imposing a curfew in the village.
For that we need to find the event that was necessary and sufficient
for the curfew to be imposed.

Step 3: Examine each answer option and eliminate the ‘certainly not’
options.

a) Unequal groundwater distribution in the village

Although we can infer that the entire chain of events given in the
argument started as a result of the unequal groundwater
distribution in the village, we can clearly see that this particular fact
alone cannot lead to a curfew.
I.e., this event alone is not a sufficient cause for the given effect
(curfew) to follow.
There could be multiple other villages with similar inequality in
ground water distribution and yet not all of them will be under
curfew.
So, can eliminate option (a) and proceed further

b) Violent clashes between the village communities

The very reason the police imposed a curfew was to curb the violent
clashes. This is clearly stated in the argument. If there were no
violent clashes, there is no need to impose a curfew. This option
seems like an obvious choice of answer since this event is both
necessary as well as sufficient for the given effect to occur.
Even if the violent clashes took place due to some other dispute, it is
very likely that still a curfew would have been imposed.
So let us keep this option in mind and proceed to the next and last
option.

39
c) State-wide media coverage of the clashes

The violent clashes received state-wide media coverage, yes. But do

we have any reason to believe that a curfew would not have been
imposed if there was no media coverage?
A careful analysis of the argument would make it clear that there is
no direct relation given between the media coverage and the curfew.
So, we can conclude that this event is neither necessary nor sufficient
for the given effect (curfew) to follow.
And so, we eliminate option (c) and conclude that option (b) is the
correct answer.

Note:-
The chronology of events is extremely important for cause-effect
relationship questions. This is because of the simple fact that effect
can never precede its cause.
The cause must ALWAYS precede the effect.

So, in step 1, when we deconstruct the argument into its

components, we must also arrange the premises chronologically so
that we have a clearer understanding of the cause-effect
phenomenon.

Sometimes, the answer trap will be set in such a way that the initial
cause of an effect or the far-fetched effect of a cause shall be given in
one among the options.

Consider the above given example of a motorcycle coming to an

abrupt stop. An example of a far-fetched effect of a cause would be
to say “Surya will lose his job as a result of losing his transportation”

We are taking the liberty of assuming that he shall get fired from his
job because he doesn’t have a stable source of transportation,
although we have nothing in the given argument that even leads
towards such an assumption.
Such kinds of assumed effects are known as far-fetched effects.

40
The 3-step method to solving CR questions, applied to cause-effect
questions can be illustrated as follows:

41
Course of Action:

In some arguments, a situation may be described and a change may

be desired in the given situation. Based on your understanding of the
situation given in the argument along with the desired direction of
change, you shall be required to find an appropriate course of action
that brings about the desired change.
Usually these are among the easier critical reasoning questions.

Let us try to get a better understanding of such types of questions

through an example.

Argument A5:
The quality of philosophy and philosophical literature has never
been as poor as it is in current times. The very busy lifestyle of an
average person living in today’s world, with half the day spent on
work, and most of the remaining hours spent consuming brain
dulling addictive content on the internet, makes them spend very
little, if at all any time, in laying back and pondering upon the deeper
meaning of things and life in general, leading to the dearth of
philosophy and hence philosophical literature.

Question:

According to the given argument, which among the given below

courses of action may lead to an improvement of philosophical
literature in current times?
a) Public exhibition of philosophical literature
b) Internet shutdown
c) Regulation of addictive internet content.
d) Increasing the break time at work by 5 minutes.

42
Now, let us solve this question using our 3-step method

Step 1: Deconstruct the argument into its components

Premise 1: Quality of philosophy is at its poorest in current times

Premise 2: Average person in today’s world spends half the day on
work and most of the remaining time on addictive internet content.
Premise 3: Average person gets almost no time to ponder over life.
Implicit assumption: Pondering deeply over life is essential for
quality philosophy.
Conclusion: Hence there is dearth of philosophical literature in
current times.

Step 2:
i) What is the question?
ii) What must be found to answer the question?

The question asks us to find a suitable course of action that shall lead
to an improvement of philosophical literature in current times.
For that, we need to find precisely what factor has led to the
deterioration of philosophy in current times and change or remove
that factor.

Carefully analysing the argument, we can see that this factor can be
understood from the assumption implicit in the argument ->
Pondering deeply over life is essential for quality philosophy.
Since the average person in today’s world spends almost no time
pondering over life due to the extreme work hours and addiction to
internet content, our course of action needs to directly address this
factor and change it.

43
Step 3: Examine each answer option and start by eliminating the
‘certainly not’ options.

a) Public exhibition of philosophical literature

Sure, public exhibition of philosophical literature may interest the

population into philosophy, but this course of action does not
address the main problem factor -> lack of time for the average
person living in today’s world (or) consumption of addictive internet
content.
Hence, we may eliminate option (a) and proceed.

b) Internet shutdown

This seems to directly address our problem factor -> addictive

internet content.
But if we calmly analyse this course of action, it seems too big an
action for the issue at hand. Almost as though burning down a house
to kill a cockroach.
Hence, we shall keep this option in hand and proceed further to
check other available options

c) Regulation of addictive internet content

Ok! This course of action seems to address our problem factor just
as directly as the previous option, but seems to be much more
appropriate for the given situation. The magnitude of the course of
action seems to match the magnitude of the problem to a much
better extent. With this, we can now eliminate option (b) and
proceed to check our next and last option.

d) Increasing the break time at work by 5 minutes.

Just like option (b) this course of action is also directly addressing
one of our problem factors -> very long work hours.
But the impact that this course of action may bring is very doubtful.
Considering that the break time is increased by 5 minutes hardly
44
seems to make a difference to the amount of free time available for a
working person.
In a way this is like trying to douse a burning house with a glass of
water. Too little impact to change the given situation.
Hence, we may eliminate option (d) and conclude that option (c) is
the appropriate course of action.

Note:-
From the example given above you can summarise the following

i) If the given course of action is too much given the situation, then
that course of action is not an appropriate one
(Similar to Burning down the house to kill the cockroach)

ii) If the given course of action is too little given the situation, then
that course of action is not an appropriate one.
(Similar to trying to douse a burning house with a glass of water)

Hence, we can say that the magnitude of the correct course of action
must be in match with the magnitude of the situation presented to
us in the argument.

With this in mind,

45
The 3-step method to solving CR questions, applied to course of
action questions can be illustrated as follows:

46
By now we have covered some of the most commonly asked Critical
reasoning questions in banking exams.
But as clearly mentioned in the introduction part of this book, there
are no technical limits to how a CR question may be framed.

All we can be sure of is that every CR question is going to consist of

an argument and questions shall be asked based on that argument,
and the fact that every argument shall contain at least one premise.

With that said, a brief description of some of the other relatively

rarer question ‘types’ are given below:

Find the flaw in the argument:

The arguments given for this question type always contain an

implicit assumption. Among the given answer options, one of the
options shall directly contradict this assumption and this option
shall be the correct answer.
In essence, you find a flaw in the argument by finding a flaw in the
assumption implicit in the argument.
To simplify, the goal of these types of questions can be stated as:
i) Identify the assumption implicit in the argument
ii) Identify the answer option that directly attacks/contradicts this
implicit assumption. i.e., find which among the answer options is
closest to being the opposite of the correct assumption.

Example Argument:
Hariram was very confident that he would win the running race
competition with his new running style. Inspired by Japanese
cartoons, he ran with his arms still and extended behind.

Hariram’s reasoning is flawed because:

a) Japanese cartoons are primarily made for Japanese children
b) Running with stiff arms can cause neck pain
c) The running style shown in Japanese cartoons is fictional and
highly inefficient in the real world

47
➔ From careful analysis of the argument, we can say that the
assumption implicit in the argument is that Hariram thinks the
running style shown in Japanese cartoons is actually superior in the
real world and hence increases running speed. If we can find an
answer option that directly attacks/contradicts this assumption,
then we have a right answer.
Obviously, option (c) accomplishes this perfectly and it is the correct
answer.

Explain the discrepancy/ Explain the situation:

Sometimes, an argument will be presented in such a way that some

of the premises will contradict each other or one or more of the
premises shall be in contradiction with the conclusion of the
argument. You need to find the answer option that provides the best
explanation for this discrepancy or the contradiction present in the
given situation.

Example Argument:

Although jogging significantly improves heart and lung health,

doctors strongly recommend against jogging more than 20kms per
day.

Which among the following best explains the discrepancy in the

given argument?
a) Jogging more than 20kms takes a lot of time
b) Jogging shoes are expensive
c) Jogging for very long distances may lead to kidney damage in the
long run.

 Here we are given an argument where the initial premise and the
conclusion are contradicting each other.
If jogging is good for lung and heart health, then obviously doctors
would recommend it. But since they strongly recommend against
jogging more than 20kms a day, there must be some negative that
outweighs the positive when running longer distances.
48
We notice that option (c) clearly gives us a negative point that could
outweigh the positive. If improvement in lung and heart health takes
place at the cost of kidney damage, then it makes perfect sense as to
why doctors would recommend against jogging more than 20kms a
day.

49
 Chapter 3

Tricks and Traps

We started by understanding what is an argument and then went to
understand the different components of an argument and the
different types of questions that can be asked based on the
interaction between these components.

In this final section of the book, we shall look into concepts that are
utilised to increase the difficulty level of questions and look at a few
particular methods/tricks used by the question creators to confuse
you into picking the wrong answer.

In order to increase the difficulty level of questions, question makers

employ one or more of the following methods: -

a) Vague presentation of key information

- When the key information is presented in a way as though the
information is irrelevant to answer the question, we often tend to
overlook that information.

b) Highlighting unimportant details

Similar to the above trick, highlighting unimportant details tends to
confuse the reader and lead them towards falsely perceiving the
unimportant piece of information as very vital to the argument.

In order to overcome these hurdles, make sure to read the given

argument carefully and thoroughly before even proceeding to the
question. Understanding all the information given in the argument is
first and foremost.

50
Common Answer option tactics:

Reverse-logic trap:

Suppose you are asked to find the option that strengthens the
argument, and one among the given options perfectly fits with the
argument, but it actually serves to weaken the argument, it is very
likely that if you are not very focused, you may pick this option as
your answer.
Such types of traps are called reverse-logic answer traps.

Real-world logic diversion:

Very often in critical reasoning questions, one is confused regarding

the validity of an argument or of an answer option due to the
argument (or) answer option being opposite to conventional
logic/wisdom in the real world.
To increase the difficulty, answer options are written in such a way
that this human tendency to infuse real-world logic is exploited.

Always remember this: The logics used in arguments need not have
any relation to the real world.
In fact, most CR questions have a preface that states this clearly. The
argument and the given answer options must be considered as true
even if it is at variance with commonly known facts.

51
 Epilogue

The Intention of writing this book was to inspire even

beginner aspirants to tackle Critical reasoning
questions. In many examinations, Critical reasoning
questions are rarely attempted by aspirants in spite of
the fact that it is one of the most scoring topics in terms
of time taken to solve a question.
Once you have mastered all the concepts, it should
hardly take more than 2 minutes to solve a CR
question!
We genuinely hope this book helped you in
understanding Critical reasoning questions better!
Wish you all the very best for your Exams!

52
Critical Reasoning also known as Verbal reasoning is
an important topic and questions related to this topic
are asked in many competitive exams including
Banking exams. But a simple and efficient
methodology or blueprint for solving CR questions
was not available so far.

We are here to address that! This book will enable

you to get a clear and precise understanding of
critical reasoning on a conceptual level and hence
equip you with the knowledge necessary to crack
critical reasoning questions.

The critical reasoning course is a paid course and it

consists of the above-mentioned e-book which serves
as a conceptual guide, along with practice quiz sets,
all of which are available only on the CareersCloud
Application. Avail this course to confidently crack
critical reasoning questions in your
competitive exams!

Click Here to Download CareersCloud APP

53
54