Critical Reasoning

Content

S. No. Chapter Page Number

1. Understanding the Structure of an Argument 5
2. Identifying Assumptions 8
3. Finding out the Main Point 13
4. Strengthening of an Argument 16
5. Weakening of an Argument 20
6. Understanding Inferences 23
7. Cause and Effect Reasoning 26
8. Resolving Paradox in an Argument 31
9. Method and Flaw in the Reasoning 35
10. Parallel Reasoning 43
11. Practice Questions on CLAT Pattern 46
CLAT CRITICAL REASONING
The Common Law Entrance Test contains around 24-27 Critical
Reasoning Questions to evaluate your ability to understand,
analyse, and critically assess the given passages, and identify
the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments presented. This
module aims to provide you with the basic concepts of critically
evaluating an argument presented and tries to explain the
application of those concepts with the help of examples. To ace
the Critical Reasoning Section in the CLAT Paper, you should
start with understanding and clarifying the basic tenets of an
argument and then move to the advanced concepts involved in
solving a Critical Reasoning question. To elaborate, the basic
concepts include a comprehensive grasp of the building blocks
of an argument, identifying the premise, assumption, conclusion,
inference etc. The advanced category of questions covers topics
such as the method of reasoning, flaws in the argument, paradox,
parallel reasoning, cause-effect dynamics, course of action, etc.
After you have covered the concepts of a particular topic, delve
into practising more and more questions on that topic. Once you
have built some confidence and grab on it, consider moving on to
the other topic. Remember, all the concepts in Critical Reasoning
are interlinked; therefore, it is suggested that you follow the
sequence of topics covered in this module.
To summarise, the following are the points you need to
remember while strategising your way ahead with the Critical
Reasoning section:
1. Establishing a solid understanding of the foundational
concepts.
2. Focus on dissecting complex arguments systematically.
3. Practice is the cornerstone of mastering Critical Reasoning.
4. Regularly reviewing your performance and learning from
mistakes.
PARTS OF A CRITICAL REASONING
QUESTION
A Critical Reasoning (CR) question typically consists of several
components, each serving a specific purpose in assessing your
ability to analyse and evaluate arguments. Here are the key
elements you might encounter:
1. The Stimulus or the Passage: The stimulus is the heart of
the CR question, presenting a scenario, argument, or passage.
It contains information, evidence and conclusions relevant
to the argument. Analyzing the stimulus is the first step in
understanding the context and identifying key elements.
2. The Question Stem: Directs your attention to a specific
aspect of the argument. It outlines the task you must
perform—drawing conclusions, identifying assumptions, or
evaluating the reasoning. Understanding the question stem
is crucial for focusing your analysis.
3. Answer Choices: Four answer choices are given in the CLAT
paper and you are required to choose the most appropriate
out of them. It is important to analyse each option carefully
before discarding that option. The process of elimination is
generally deployed to reach the correct answer.
Illustration
Stimulus or Passage: In a small town, there’s an ongoing debate
about the effectiveness of a proposed curfew for teenagers.
Proponents argue that a curfew will reduce crime rates among
teenagers, ensuring safety for both the youth and the community.
Opponents counter that a curfew infringes on the freedom of
teenagers and doesn’t address the root causes of delinquency.
Question Stem
1. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the
argument in favour of the proposed curfew?
Answer Choices
(a) A recent study indicates that the majority of crimes involving
teenagers occur during daylight hours.
(b) The town has experienced a decrease in overall crime rates
in the past year.
(c) Teenagers in the town actively participate in after-
school programs focused on skill-building and personal
development.
(d) The proposed curfew is set to begin at 10 PM, impacting
teenagers who are generally not involved in criminal
activities.
 1 Understanding the Structure
of an Argument
In this chapter, we will delve into the intricacies of dissecting
arguments, deciphering their components, and comprehending
the relationships that underpin them. At its core, an argument
is a construction of premises and a conclusion. The premises
are statements that lay the groundwork, providing evidence or
support, while the conclusion is the ultimate point or claim the
author seeks to establish. Let’s begin by first understanding what
are the pieces of an argument, how they fit together and how we
categorise them.
A. PREMISE
All arguments contain at least one premise. A premise is the core
of the argument that supports the conclusion. It can be a fact or
an opinion; can be a description, historical information, statistical
or numerical data, or a comparison of things. It gives the reason
why conclusions should be accepted. In essence, premises are the
building blocks upon which the entire argument rests. To identify
premises, ask yourself the question; What reasons has the author
used to persuade you? What are the evidences that exist and why
should you believe in what he says?
Illustration
Argument: “Implementing a curfew for teenagers in our town is
necessary to reduce crime rates and ensure the safety of both the
youth and the community”.
Premise: “Statistics from the past year show a significant increase
in criminal activities involving teenagers during late-night hours,
especially after 10 PM”.
In this argument, the premise is the statement providing
evidence or support for the conclusion that implementing a curfew
is necessary. The premise cites statistical data from the past
year, specifically highlighting an increase in criminal activities
involving teenagers during late-night hours. This premise aims
to convince the audience that the proposed curfew is a necessary
measure to address the identified issue.
B. CONCLUSION
Most but not all arguments contain a conclusion. It represents
the author’s main opinion or claim and can be in the form of
a prediction, a judgment of quality or merit, or a statement of
causality. The conclusion is the core assertion that the author aims
to persuade the audience to accept. It serves as the culmination
of the premises, drawing together the supporting elements into
a singular claim. Conclusions can be explicitly stated or implied
within the context of the argument. Explicit conclusions are
articulated, while implied conclusions require a deeper level of
analysis, involving an understanding of the logical connections
between statements. To identify conclusions, ask yourself the
question; What does the author want you to believe? What points
follow from the above-stated points?
Illustration
Argument: “The implementation of mandatory community
service for high school students is an indispensable measure for
fostering civic responsibility and personal development”.
Conclusion: “Therefore, introducing mandatory community
service requirements will contribute significantly to shaping
responsible and well-rounded individuals”.
In this argument, the conclusion is the sentence that
begins with “Therefore”. It represents the central claim that the
author aims to establish: the idea that implementing mandatory
community service for high school students will contribute
significantly to shaping responsible and well-rounded individuals.
The conclusion synthesizes the information presented in the
premises, which could include arguments about the benefits of
community service, the positive impact on personal development,
and the cultivation of civic responsibility.
To help you out in the process of identifying the premise
and the conclusion effectively, a list of signal words or indicators
is provided below. Following are the words which the author
generally uses to introduce a premise or a conclusion. Remember
this is not an exhaustive list but it will help you to categorise and
break the complex set of arguments presented in a passage. While
reading the passages train your eyes to spot these signal words
and then mark that statement as the premise or conclusion.
Premise Indicators Conclusion Indicators
Since Hence
Because Thus
For Therefore
In that So
Given that Accordingly
Due to Clearly
Owing to Conclude that
We know this by Must be that
This can be seen from Shows that

For example Follows that
For the reason that For this reason
As indicated by As a result
Because of In summary
Considering that To sum up
Assuming that Ultimately
Application Drill
Read the short argument presented and categorise the parts of the
argument as premise or conclusion:
1. “Given that the price of steel is rising, we will no longer be
able to offer discounts on our car parts”.
Sol. Premise: “Given that the price of steel is rising”.
Conclusion: “We will no longer be able to offer discounts
on our car parts”.
2. “Since we need to have many different interests to sustain
us, the scientists’ belief must be incorrect”.
Sol. Premise: “Owing to the ability of individual warlords to
maintain powerful armed forces”.
Conclusion: “The political situation in Somalia is unstable”.
3. “Television hurts society. This can be seen from the poor
school performance of children who watch significant
amounts of television and from the fact that children who
watch more than six hours of television a day tend to read
less than non-television-watching children”.
Sol. Premise 1: “This can be seen from the poor school
performance of children who watch significant amounts of
television”.
Premise 2: “And from the fact that children who watch
more than six hours of television a day tend to read less than
non-television watching children”.
Conclusion: “Television hurts society”. Note how this
sentence does not contain a conclusion indicator. Yet, we
can determine that this is the conclusion because the other
sentence contains two premises.
WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL PREMISE AND
COUNTER PREMISE?
Additional Premise
Additional premises are supplementary statements that provide
further support to the main argument. They enhance the credibility
and persuasiveness of the primary premises, reinforcing the
logical connection between evidence and conclusion. These
premises contribute to a more robust and convincing argument
by addressing potential gaps, anticipating objections, or providing
examples to illustrate key points.
Illustration
Argument: “Implementing a four-day workweek will enhance
employee satisfaction and productivity”.
6 Critical Reasoning PW
Additional Premise: “Studies conducted in various industries
consistently show that companies offering a four-day workweek
experience a significant reduction in employee burnout and an
increase in overall job satisfaction”.
In this example, the additional premise strengthens the
argument by providing empirical evidence from studies. It
reinforces the initial claim by introducing a broader perspective,
suggesting that a four-day workweek is not only a theoretical
concept but has been empirically linked to positive outcomes in
terms of employee well-being and satisfaction.
Counter Premise
Counter-premises introduce alternative perspectives or challenges
to the main argument, encouraging a nuanced evaluation of the
issue at hand. They serve as critical elements that challenge the
assumptions made by the author, prompting a more thorough
examination of the issue. It involves actively seeking out
potential weaknesses in the argument and considering alternative
perspectives that may impact the overall validity of the conclusion.
Illustration
Argument: “Implementing a four-day workweek will enhance
employee satisfaction and productivity”.
Counter-Premise: “However, critics argue that a four-day
workweek may lead to a decrease in overall productivity due to
the condensed work hours and potential disruptions in project
timelines”.
Here, the counter-premise introduces an opposing
viewpoint, challenging the assumption that a four-day workweek
unequivocally leads to increased productivity. The counter-
premise forces a more comprehensive analysis of potential
drawbacks, such as condensed work hours and potential
disruptions, encouraging a reader or test-taker to consider
alternative perspectives and potential limitations to the argument.
Following is the list of signal words or indicators that will
help you identify an additional premise or a counter premise:
Additional Premise Counter Premise
Indicators Indicators
Besides Yet
Moreover But
Furthermore However
In addition On the other hand
After all Although
What’s more Despite
Consider also Whereas
Another contributing factor is Contrary to this
Not only…..but also Conversely
In light of this evidence On the flip side
Application Drill
Read the short argument presented and categorise the parts of the
argument.
1. During last night’s robbery, the thief was unable to open
the safe. Thus, last night’s robbery was unsuccessful even
though the thief stole several documents. After all, nothing
in those documents was as valuable as the money in the safe.
Sol. Premise: “During last night’s robbery, the thief was unable
to open the safe”.
Counter-Premise: “Even though the thief stole several
documents”.
Additional Premise: “After all, nothing in those documents
was as valuable as the money in the safe”.
Conclusion: “Thus, last night’s robbery was unsuccessful”.
2. An argument has been given and you need to form a premise,
additional premise, conclusion and counter premise for it.
Argument: “Implementing a flexible work-from-home
policy will contribute to increased employee satisfaction
and a more favourable work-life balance”.
Sol. You can form your answer. This is an example of a possible
correct answer. This exercise will help you clarify your
fundamental understanding of the basic constituents of an
argument.
Understanding the Structure of an Argument
Premise: “A survey conducted among employees in various
industries revealed that a majority expressed a desire for
more flexible work arrangements and cited it as a crucial
factor influencing job satisfaction”.
Premise: “Research studies consistently show that
organizations with flexible work policies experience lower
rates of employee burnout and higher levels of overall job
satisfaction”.
Additional Premise: “Moreover, companies that have
adopted flexible work-from-home policies report increased
employee retention rates and improved recruitment
outcomes”.
Conclusion: “Therefore, adopting a flexible work-from-
home policy is likely to enhance both employee satisfaction
and overall workforce well-being”.
Counter-Premise: “However, critics argue that a remote
work environment might lead to reduced collaboration
and teamwork, potentially impacting project outcomes and
hindering the organization’s overall productivity”.
Note: Repeat the idea of these application drills while reading
newspapers, articles, blogs, etc. Break down the available
information and classify them under these heads. This will increase
your overall understanding and accuracy while attempting the
logical reasoning section in the CLAT paper.
7
 2 Identifying Assumptions
WHAT IS AN ASSUMPTION?
An assumption in critical reasoning is an underlying belief that the
author must accept as true for their argument to hold, even though
it might not be explicitly stated. It is a foundational element that
bridges the gap between the provided premises and the conclusion,
representing a necessary link in the logical chain of reasoning.
Assumptions are not always universally true in the real world;
their significance lies in the fact that the author relies on them
to make their claim. These unstated premises often represent the
author’s worldview, values or expectations. In other words, you
can also look at assumptions as additional information that the
author has assumed the reader already knows while reading the
argument.
The following figure shows the relationship between a
premise, a conclusion and an assumption. The assumption is the
hidden foundation of a premise.
Conclusion
↑↑↑
Premise
↓↓↓
Assumption
ASSUMPTION QUESTION STEMS
The following list of the probable question stems will help you
identify that the questions asked are related to identifying the
assumption in the question.
The argument in the passage depends on which of the following
assumptions?
The argument above assumes that
The conclusion above is based on which of the following
assumptions?
Which of the following is an assumption made in concluding
above?
The conclusion of the argument above cannot be true unless
which of the following is true?
HOW TO SPOT ASSUMPTIONS IN A CRITICAL
REASONING QUESTION?
Spotting assumptions is a crucial skill in critical reasoning, and
it involves identifying gaps or missing links in an argument. To
discern assumptions, examine whether the provided evidence or
supporting logic explicitly presented in the argument is sufficient
to justify the conclusion. If there’s a need for additional evidence
or logic to make the argument coherent, an assumption is likely
present. The author often relies on the reader to automatically
make these assumptions without explicitly stating them. To find
these gaps or holes, ask yourself if the evidence logically supports
the argument and if any extra support is required. Once a gap is
identified, the next step is to articulate the missing evidence or
supporting logic that needs to be assumed for the argument to
make sense. Consider what assumptions you, as a reader, need to
accept for the argument to be valid.
To test the validity of the assumed assumption, attempt to
deny or negate it. If negating the assumption weakens the argument,
the assumption is valid because, without it, the argument loses its
coherence. On the other hand, if negating the assumption doesn’t
impact the argument’s strength, then the assumption is incorrect.
In simple terms, spotting assumptions involves finding the hidden
beliefs that the author expects you to accept for their argument to
work. These unspoken premises often act as the glue that holds
the argument together.
The Negation Technique
The negation technique is a methodical approach to testing the
validity of these assumptions.
 Step 1: Identify the Assumption: Begin by pinpointing the
assumption in the argument. This is the underlying belief
that, while not explicitly stated, is crucial for the argument’s
coherence. It often acts as the linchpin holding the reasoning
together.
 Step 2: Articulate the Assumption: Clearly state the
assumption. Express the implicit belief that the author
relies on but doesn’t overtly mention in the argument. This
articulation helps in formulating a clear negation of the
assumption.
 Step 3: Negate the Assumption: Take the assumption you’ve
identified and negate it. In simple terms, express the opposite
or deny the truth of the assumption. This step is pivotal in
testing whether the argument hinges on this particular belief.
 Step 4: Assess the Impact: Now, critically examine how the
negation of the assumption influences the overall strength of
the argument. Ask yourself whether the argument still holds
its ground or if it falters without the assumed premise.
 Step 5: Two Possible Outcomes: There are two potential
outcomes:
• If negating the assumption significantly weakens
the argument, the assumption is crucial. Your initial
identification is valid and the argument relies on this
unstated belief.
• If negating the assumption doesn’t impact the argument’s
strength, the assumption may not be as indispensable as
initially thought. The argument can maintain its cogency
without this particular implicit premise.
Most of the CLAT Critical Reasoning Questions based
on assumptions can be easily solved by deploying this negation
technique. The task is to first understand all the steps of how to
apply the negation technique and then practice as many questions
as you can to strengthen your grab on the concept of assumption.
Refer to the following Illustrations to get more clarity on the
application of assumptions and then solve the application drills
that follow.
Illustration
Argument: “Implementing a flexible work schedule will lead to
increased employee satisfaction”.
Assumption: Employees value flexibility in their work schedules.
In this argument, the assumption is the unstated belief that
forms the linchpin connecting the proposed action (implementing
a flexible work schedule) to the desired outcome (increased
employee satisfaction). To analyze this assumption more
comprehensively, let’s break down the steps:
 Step 1: Identify the Assumption: The assumption here is
that employees value flexibility in their work schedules. This
belief isn’t explicitly mentioned in the argument but is crucial
for the argument’s logic to hold.
 Step 2: Articulate the Assumption: Express the assumption
explicitly: “Employees value flexibility in their work
schedules”.
 Step 3: Negate the Assumption: Negate the assumption:
“Employees do not value flexibility in their work schedules”.
 Step 4: Assess the Impact: Now, consider how the argument
would fare if employees did not value flexibility. If the
argument weakens significantly without this assumption, it
means that the initial assumption is crucial.
 Step 5: Answer Explanation: If the argument’s
persuasiveness relies heavily on the assumption that
employees value flexibility, then the belief in the importance
of flexible work schedules is fundamental to the conclusion.
The assumption acts as a bridge, connecting the proposed
action with the expected outcome. If employees do not value
flexibility, the argument loses its logical foundation.
Final Answer
The assumption, therefore, is that “Employees value flexibility in
their work schedules”. This implicit belief, when made explicit,
ensures the logical coherence of the argument. It underscores the
necessity of understanding the employees’ preferences to make a
Identifying Assumptions
compelling case for implementing a flexible work schedule and
expecting increased satisfaction.
Illustration
Assumption: Regular exercise contributes to weight loss.
Negation: Regular exercise does not contribute to weight loss.
Assessment: If the argument significantly weakens without the
assumption, it implies that the belief in exercise leading to weight
loss is crucial. However, if the argument remains robust even
when negating this assumption, it suggests that the connection
between exercise and weight loss might not be as pivotal as
initially thought.
Application Drill
Argument: “Introducing a recycling program in the office will
significantly reduce the company’s carbon footprint”.
1. Which of the following is the assumption of the argument?
(a) Employees are environmentally conscious and willing
to participate in recycling efforts.
(b) The office generates a substantial amount of recyclable
waste.
(c) The cost of implementing the recycling program is
minimal.
(d) The company’s competitors have successfully
implemented recycling programs.
Sol. Option (a) (Correct Answer): The assumption underlying
the argument is that employees are environmentally
conscious and willing to participate in recycling efforts. If
employees are not environmentally conscious or unwilling
to participate, the effectiveness of the recycling program is
jeopardized. Therefore, Option (a) is the correct answer.
Option (b) (Incorrect): While it might seem logical that
a recycling program is effective if there’s a substantial
amount of recyclable waste, the argument does not depend
on the quantity alone. The assumption is about employee
behaviour and willingness to participate, making Option (b)
less relevant to the logical bridge needed in the argument.
Option (c) (Incorrect): The cost of implementing the
recycling program, while potentially important, is not a
necessary assumption for the argument. The argument
focuses on the reduction of the company’s carbon footprint,
and the assumption is more about employee behaviour than
the program cost. Therefore, Option (c) is not as crucial to
the argument.
Option (d) (Incorrect): The success or failure of the
company’s competitors in implementing recycling programs
is not a necessary assumption for the effectiveness of the
proposed recycling program in this specific company. The
argument is centred around the company’s situation, and the
success of competitors is tangential to the logical connection
needed for the conclusion.
9
UNDERSTANDING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT
ASSUMPTIONS
Explicit Assumptions
Explicit assumptions are the beliefs that are clearly stated or
expressed in the argument. These are the premises that the author
directly puts forward to support their conclusion. For example,
in the argument “Increasing funding for education will improve
student performance”, the explicit assumption might be stated
as “More resources lead to better educational outcomes”. These
assumptions are transparent and can be easily identified within
the argument itself.
Implicit Assumptions
Implicit assumptions, on the other hand, are beliefs that are not
explicitly stated in the argument but are necessary for the argument
to make sense. These assumptions are often hidden beneath the
surface and need to be inferred based on the logical structure of
the argument. Going back to our education example, an implicit
assumption could be “Improved student performance is directly
linked to increased funding”. Even though not directly mentioned,
this assumption is crucial for the conclusion to be valid.
WHAT ARE SUPPORTER AND DEFENDER
ASSUMPTIONS?
Supporter Assumption
A supporter assumption is an underlying belief or premise that
strengthens and reinforces the argument’s conclusion. It is an
assumption that, if true, makes the conclusion more credible and
likely. Essentially, a supporter assumption helps bridge the gap
between the provided evidence or premises and the conclusion,
enhancing the overall persuasiveness of the argument.
Illustration
Argument: “Increasing funding for public libraries will improve
literacy rates in the community”.
Supporter Assumption: “Access to a well-funded library system
positively impacts people’s reading habits and, consequently,
improves literacy rates”.
In this case, the assumption is that a well-funded library
system positively influences people’s reading habits, thereby
contributing to improved literacy rates. If this assumption holds, it
fortifies the argument that increasing funding for public libraries
will lead to enhanced literacy rates.
Defender Assumption
A defender assumption is an implicit belief that protects the
argument from potential counterarguments or challenges. It
is an assumption that, if negated or proven false, weakens the
argument’s strength. A defender assumption is often essential for
shoring up the argument against possible criticisms.
Illustration
Argument: “Implementing a new software system will increase
workplace efficiency”.
10
Defender Assumption: “The employees are adequately trained
to use the new software system”.
In this scenario, the assumption acts as a defender by
assuming that employees are well-trained to use the new software
system. If this assumption is not valid, the argument becomes
vulnerable to the counterargument that insufficient training might
hinder the effectiveness of the new software, thereby potentially
reducing workplace efficiency.
Application Drill
1. Try to solve the following question on assumption. Verify
your line of reasoning with the help of the explanation
provided at the end of the question.
For several years, Nighttime News attracted fewer viewers
than World News, which broadcasts its show at the same time
as Nighttime News. Recently, the producers of Nighttime
News added personal interest stories and increased coverage
of sports and weather. The two programs now have a roughly
equal number of viewers. The recent programming changes
persuaded viewers to switch from World News to Nighttime
News.
The conclusion above is properly drawn if which of the
following is assumed?
(a) Viewers are more interested in sports and weather than
in personal interest stories.
(b) The programming content of Nighttime News is more
closely aligned with the interests of the overall audience
than is the content of World News.
(c) Some World News viewers liked the new Nighttime
News programming better than they liked the World
News programming.
(d) There are other possible causes for an increase in the
number of viewers of Nighttime News, including a
recent ad campaign that aired on many local affiliates.
Sol. Option (a): This statement, even if true, does not necessarily
support the conclusion. The argument focuses on the overall
increase in Nighttime News viewership, not the relative
interest in specific content within Nighttime News.
Option (b): This assumption aligns with the conclusion. If
Nighttime News is more aligned with the overall audience’s
interests, the recent programming changes could indeed have
persuaded viewers to switch from World News to Nighttime
News.
Option (c): This assumption is critical for the conclusion.
If some World News viewers preferred the new Nighttime
News programming, it supports the idea that the recent
changes led to a shift in viewership.
Option (d): This introduces an alternative cause for the
increase in Nighttime News viewership. If true, it weakens
the argument, suggesting that factors other than the
programming changes may be responsible for the shift in
viewership.
The correct answer is (c): Some World News viewers liked
the new Nighttime News programming better than they liked
Critical Reasoning PW
 the World News programming. This assumption strengthens
the argument by providing a direct link between the
programming changes and the observed shift in viewership.
If some viewers prefer the new Nighttime News content, it
supports the conclusion that the recent programming changes
persuaded viewers to switch from World News to Nighttime
News.
2. Country N’s oil production is insufficient to meet domestic
demand. To sharply reduce its dependence on foreign
sources of oil, Country N recently embarked on a program
requiring all of its automobiles to run on ethanol in addition
to gasoline. With its oil production, Country N produces
enough ethanol from agricultural by-products to meet its
current energy demand.
Which of the following must be assumed to conclude that
Country N will succeed in its plan to reduce its dependence
on foreign oil?
(a) Electric power is not a superior alternative to ethanol in
supplementing automobile gasoline consumption.
(b) In Country N, domestic production of ethanol is
increasing more quickly than domestic oil production.
(c) Ethanol is suitable for the heating of homes and other
applications aside from automobiles.
(d) Ethanol is as efficient as gasoline in terms of mileage
per gallon when used as fuel for automobiles.
Sol. Option (a): This statement is irrelevant to the plan’s success
in reducing dependence on foreign oil. The argument
specifically focuses on the use of ethanol in addition to
gasoline in automobiles, not the comparison with electric
power.
Option (b): This assumption is crucial for the success of the
plan. If domestic ethanol production is not increasing at a
pace greater than domestic oil production, it could hinder
the goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil.
Option (c): This information is interesting but not necessary
for the conclusion about reducing dependence on foreign
oil. The argument is centred around the use of ethanol in
automobiles, not in other applications.
Option (d): This assumption is critical for the success of
the plan. If ethanol is not as efficient as gasoline in terms of
mileage per gallon, it could deter consumers from adopting
the plan, impacting the goal of reducing dependence on
foreign oil.
The correct answer is (d): Ethanol is as efficient as gasoline
in terms of mileage per gallon when used as fuel for
automobiles. This assumption is necessary for the success
of the plan, as it ensures that the switch to ethanol does not
lead to a significant decrease in fuel efficiency, thereby
encouraging the adoption of the plan and contributing to
the reduction in dependence on foreign oil.
Conditional Reasoning
Conditional reasoning is a fundamental aspect of logic that
involves relationships between sufficient and necessary
Identifying Assumptions
conditions. In simple terms, a conditional statement is comprised
of events or circumstances where the occurrence of one condition
(sufficient) indicates that another condition (necessary) must also
occur. Any conditional statement consists of at least one sufficient
condition and at least one necessary condition.
Sufficient Condition
A sufficient condition is an event or circumstance whose occurrence
guarantees that a necessary condition will also occur. It serves as
a trigger, signalling that the necessary condition is assured. Think
of it as the key that unlocks the door to the necessary condition. If
the sufficient condition happens, you can be certain the necessary
condition follows.
Necessary Condition
On the flip side, a necessary condition is an event or circumstance
that must happen for a sufficient condition to occur. It is a
prerequisite, without which the sufficient condition cannot take
place. While the presence of the necessary condition ensures the
sufficient condition is possible, its absence prevents the sufficient
condition from happening.
Example
1. Unlocking a Door: Sufficient Condition (Having the Key):
If you have the key, that’s enough to unlock the door. So,
having the key is a sufficient condition for unlocking the door.
For example, if you possess the key to your house, you can
use it to unlock the door and get inside.
Necessary Condition (Using the Key): On the flip side,
to unlock the door, you must use the key. Using the key is
necessary; without it, the door stays locked. For instance,
having the key might not be enough. You have to insert it
into the lock and turn it to unlock the door.
2. Making Tea: Sufficient Condition (Boiling Water): If you
have boiling water, that’s sufficient to make tea. Boiling water
is a sufficient condition for making tea. For example, if you
have a kettle on the stove with water reaching a boil, you’re
all set to make tea.
Necessary Condition (Using Tea Leaves): However,
to make tea, you must use tea leaves. Using tea leaves is
necessary; without them, you can’t make tea. If you only
have boiling water but no tea leaves, you won’t have tea.
3. Sending Mails: Sufficient Condition (Having an Email
Account): If you have an email account, that’s sufficient to
send emails. Having an email account is a sufficient condition
for sending emails. For instance, if you’ve signed up for an
email service, you can send emails.
Necessary Condition (Entering Recipient’s Email
Address): Yet, to send an email, you must enter the recipient’s
email address. Entering the recipient’s email address is
necessary; without it, your email won’t reach anyone. Even
if you have an email account, without specifying who you’re
sending it to, the email can’t be sent.
The concept of conditional reasoning does not appear
directly in the CLAT paper but when appearing for Other
11
 Law Entrances, the understanding of conditional reasoning
helps immensely in solving advanced categories of Critical
Reasoning questions as well as Reading Comprehension
passages. Generally, the application of conditional reasoning
can be seen directly in the ‘Must be True’ type questions.
Three Logical Features of Conditional Reasoning
1. Sufficient does not cause necessity: The sufficient condition
in a conditional statement does not actively cause the
necessary condition to happen. Unlike causal reasoning,
where one event directly influences another, in conditional
reasoning, the sufficient condition is a signal or indicator that
the necessary condition will, is, or has already occurred.
2. Temporal flexibility: Temporally speaking, either condition
can occur first, or the two conditions can occur at the same
time.
3. Not necessarily reflecting reality: The conditional
relationship presented by the author doesn’t have to mirror
reality. Understanding that the author’s statement may not
align with what seems intuitively reasonable is essential.
Indicator Words
The following is the list of signal words or indicators that will
help you identify a necessary or a sufficient condition:
To introduce a sufficient To introduce a necessary
condition condition
If Then
When Only
Whenever Only if
Any Unless
All Required
Every Must
Each Except
To Until
People who Without
Application Drill
Try to solve the questions provided below and verify your
reasoning with the help of explanations that follow:
1. Statement: “If it rains, then Sarah will bring an umbrella”.
Which of the following is a valid conclusion based on the
conditional statement?
(a) Sarah always brings an umbrella, even if it doesn’t rain.
(b) If Sarah brings an umbrella, it must be raining.
(c) Sarah never brings an umbrella when it rains.
(d) If it’s not raining, Sarah won’t bring an umbrella.
Sol. The original statement is “If it rains, then Sarah will bring an
umbrella”. This sets up a conditional relationship where the
occurrence of rain is the sufficient condition, and bringing an
umbrella is the necessary condition. The correct conclusion
should align with the nature of conditional reasoning.
12
In this case, option (d) correctly captures the essence of the
conditional statement. It states that if it’s not raining (absence
of the sufficient condition), Sarah won’t bring an umbrella
(absence of the necessary condition).
(a) Suggests Sarah always brings an umbrella, even if it
doesn’t rain. This is not a valid conclusion based on the
given statement.
(b) Reverses the conditional relationship, stating that if
Sarah brings an umbrella, it must be raining. This
contradicts the original statement.
(c) Claims that Sarah never brings an umbrella when it rains,
which is not supported by the given statement.
Thus, Option (d) is the correct conclusion as it accurately
reflects the conditional relationship established in the
original statement. If it’s not raining, Sarah won’t bring an
umbrella, maintaining the logic of conditional reasoning.
2. Statement: “If Max practices piano for at least two hours
every day, then he will perform exceptionally well at the
recital”.
Which of the following conclusions can be validly drawn
based on the given conditional statement?
(a) If Max performs exceptionally well at the recital, he
must have practised piano for at least two hours every
day.
(b) Max practices piano for at least two hours every day
only when there is a recital.
(c) Max never performs well at the recital unless he practices
piano for at least two hours every day.
(d) If Max doesn’t practice piano for at least two hours every
day, he won’t perform exceptionally well at the recital.
Sol. The given statement establishes a conditional relationship
where practising piano for at least two hours every day is the
sufficient condition, and performing exceptionally well at
the recital is the necessary condition. The correct conclusion
should align with the nature of conditional reasoning.
In this case, option (d) accurately captures the essence of
the conditional statement. It states that if Max doesn’t meet
the sufficient condition (not practising for at least two hours
every day), he won’t fulfil the necessary condition (not
performing exceptionally well at the recital).
(a) reverses the conditional relationship, suggesting that
practising for at least two hours every day is necessary
for exceptional performance. This contradicts the
original statement.
(b) implies that Max practices piano only when there is a
recital, which is not supported by the given statement.
(c) suggests that Max never performs well unless he
practices every day, but this extreme claim is not
warranted by the original statement.
Thus, Option (d) is the correct conclusion as it accurately
reflects the conditional relationship established in the
original statement. If Max doesn’t meet the sufficient
condition, he won’t achieve the necessary condition, aligning
with the logic of conditional reasoning.
Critical Reasoning PW
 3 Finding out the Main Point
Understanding the main point is like finding the most important
idea in what you’re reading or listening to. It’s like the main
message or the key reason behind why someone wrote or spoke
something. Imagine it as the big idea that everything else connects
to, making it super important for us to identify. The main point
is like the main idea, the core message that the author or speaker
wants us to get. It’s the main thing they are talking about, the
central point that ties everything together. Think of it as the main
focus or the big picture that we need to catch onto while reading
or listening. Knowing the main point is like having a guide that
helps us understand things better. It’s crucial because it guides
us through what we’re reading or hearing, making everything
clearer. It’s like a map that shows us the way, making it easier
for us to make sense of the information and think more carefully.
Finding the main point changes depending on what we are
reading. In stories, it might be the main theme or the big message
the author wants us to remember. In non-fiction like news or
articles, the main point is often the writer’s main argument or the
key information they’re telling us.
MAIN POINT QUESTION STEMS
Here are some common question stems that might be used for
main point questions:
Which of the following best summarizes the central idea of the
passage/paragraph/argument?
What is the primary purpose of the passage?
The author’s main point in the passage is best described as...
What does the author primarily want to convey in the passage?
Which of the following statements expresses the central focus
of the paragraph?
What is the key takeaway from the argument presented in the
passage?
The passage is primarily concerned with...
What is the author’s primary stance in the passage?
How to Identify the Main Point in an Argument?
Identifying the main point in an argument is like uncovering the
heart of what someone is trying to convince us of. It involves
looking closely at the argument’s structure, understanding the
core idea, and recognizing why the author or speaker is presenting
it. Let us try to understand how to identify the main point in an
argument:
1. Firstly, it’s crucial to grasp the structure of the argument.
Arguments typically consist of premises and conclusions.
Premises are the supporting statements or evidence, while
the conclusion is the main idea that the author wants us to
accept. Paying attention to these elements helps us see the
logical flow of the argument.
2. Next, we need to focus on the language used by the author.
Keywords and phrases often signal the main point. Look for
terms like “therefore”, “thus” or “consequently” as these
usually precede the conclusion. Understanding how different
parts of the argument are connected helps us pinpoint the
central message.
3. Now, consider the author’s perspective and purpose.
Understanding why someone is making an argument helps us
see the main point more clearly. Authors may aim to persuade,
inform, or entertain, and recognizing their goal provides
insight into the primary message they want to convey.
4. Examine the supporting evidence provided in the argument.
While the main point is the central idea, the supporting
details and evidence strengthen the argument. Analyzing
this evidence helps confirm and clarify the main point. It’s
like understanding why the author believes their main idea
is true.
5. Look for the counterarguments or opposing viewpoints.
Sometimes, authors present contrasting ideas to strengthen
their argument. Identifying these counterarguments can assist
in understanding the main point more comprehensively. It’s
like exploring the boundaries of the argument to see where
it stands strongest.
6. Also consider the tone and style of the argument. The way
an author presents their ideas can reveal the emotional
or persuasive aspects of the main point. Recognizing the
emotional undertones or the level of persuasion helps us
understand the author’s intended impact.
7. Lastly, summarize the argument in your own words. Creating
a concise summary forces us to distil the main point from the
supporting details. We’ve likely identified the main point if
we can express the argument’s essence in a few sentences.
This step is like putting the puzzle pieces together to reveal
the big picture.
Illustration
Argument: Regular exercise is crucial for maintaining good
health. Studies consistently show that individuals who engage
in at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise five times
a week experience lower rates of chronic diseases, such as heart
disease and diabetes. Additionally, exercise has been linked
to improved mental health, reducing the risk of conditions like
depression and anxiety. Therefore, incorporating regular exercise
into one’s routine is a key factor in promoting overall well-being.
Steps to Identify the Main Point
1. Structure Analysis: Recognize the structure of the argument.
Here, the premises are the benefits of regular exercise
mentioned in the studies, and the conclusion is the assertion
that incorporating exercise promotes overall well-being.
2. Language Clues: Look for language that signals the main
point. The word “therefore” in the last sentence indicates the
transition to the conclusion, emphasizing the importance of
exercise for well-being.
3. Author’s Perspective and Purpose: Consider why the
author is making this argument. In this case, the author is
presenting evidence to persuade readers of the positive impact
of exercise on health and well-being.
4. Supporting Evidence: Examine the supporting evidence,
such as the mention of studies linking exercise to lower
rates of chronic diseases and improved mental health. This
evidence reinforces the main point that exercise is beneficial
for overall health.
5. Counterarguments: Identify any counterarguments or
opposing viewpoints. In this example, the author doesn’t
present opposing views but rather focuses on reinforcing the
benefits of exercise.
6. Tone and Style: Observe the tone and style used.
The argument employs a factual and informative tone,
emphasizing the credibility of the presented studies to
strengthen the persuasive impact.
7. Summarize in your Own Words: Summarize the argument
in your own words. The main point is that incorporating
regular exercise into one’s routine is a crucial factor in
promoting overall well-being due to the proven health
benefits mentioned in the studies.
Application Drill
Read the following passages and try to identify the main point
of the passage. To verify the answer, consult the explanation that
follows:
Passage 1
As we stand on the brink of a critical juncture in addressing
climate change, we must reevaluate our choices in transportation.
The transition to electric vehicles (EVs) presents an unparalleled
opportunity to curb emissions, reduce our dependence on fossil
fuels, and pave the way for a sustainable future. Governments,
industries, and individuals must collaboratively embark on this
journey toward embracing EVs, ensuring a cleaner and greener
tomorrow. The shift to electric vehicles not only aligns with global
environmental goals but also offers a chance for economic growth
and innovation. Countries investing in EV infrastructure and
manufacturing are not only reducing their carbon footprint but are
also positioning themselves as leaders in the burgeoning electric
14
vehicle market. Embracing EVs is not just an environmental
necessity; it’s a strategic move that fosters economic resilience
and technological advancement.
Critics argue about the limitations of current EV technology,
including range anxiety and the environmental impact of battery
production. However, these challenges are not insurmountable.
Continuous research and development are addressing battery
efficiency, charging infrastructure, and recycling methods.
Moreover, the environmental impact of manufacturing traditional
vehicles far outweighs the challenges posed by electric vehicle
production. In this era of conscious consumerism, individuals are
increasingly seeking sustainable alternatives. Electric vehicles
offer not only a green option for personal transportation but also
significant long-term cost savings. Governments should incentivize
the adoption of EVs, ensuring that cost barriers are minimized and
that citizens are encouraged to make eco-conscious choices.
1. What is the primary message of the editorial piece?
(a) The challenges of electric vehicle technology outweigh
the potential benefits.
(b) The transition to electric vehicles is crucial for addressing
climate change and offers economic opportunities.
(c) Electric vehicles are not a practical option for personal
transportation due to range limitations.
(d) Governments should not intervene in promoting electric
vehicles; it should be a consumer-driven shift.
Sol.
(a) Incorrect: The editorial emphasizes that the potential
benefits of electric vehicles outweigh the challenges,
so this option is not the main idea.
(b) Correct: The main idea of the editorial is that
transitioning to electric vehicles is crucial for addressing
climate change and offers economic opportunities. It
highlights the environmental and economic benefits of
embracing EVs.
(c) Incorrect: The editorial acknowledges challenges but
argues that they are not insurmountable, emphasizing
the overall benefits of electric vehicles.
(d) Incorrect: The editorial suggests that government
intervention is crucial in incentivizing the adoption of
electric vehicles, making this option inconsistent with
the main idea.
Passage 2
Many patients are hesitant to seek second opinions when making
decisions about their health, even when considering major
medical procedures. This hesitation is sometimes based on a lack
of familiarity with a relatively new physician, but even where
a strong relationship has been developed between doctor and
patient, the person being treated often perceives the interest in
a second opinion as an affront to the doctor who has provided
the first opinion. This tendency is rather unfortunate, given the
potential benefits, either of further confirmation that a particular
path represents the proper course or of contrary perspectives
which can be considered for more fully informed decisions.
Critical Reasoning PW
 2. Which of the following best represents the main point of the
passage above?
(a) Patients should seek second opinions only in cases of
questionable intent on the part of the physician.
(b) Some doctors consider the request for a second opinion
offensive.
(c) Doctors who tell patients not to seek second opinions are
attempting to avoid competition with other physicians.
(d) Many patients are hesitant to seek second opinions when
making decisions about their health.
Sol.
(a) Incorrect: The passage does not suggest that patients
should seek second opinions only in cases of questionable
intent on the part of the physician. The focus is on patient
hesitancy in seeking second opinions for various reasons.
Finding out the Main Point
(b) Incorrect: While the passage mentions that some patients
perceive the interest in a second opinion as an affront
to the initial doctor, it does not generalize this to all
doctors. The main point is about patient hesitation, not
the reaction of doctors.
(c) Incorrect: The passage does not claim doctors
telling patients not to seek second opinions to avoid
competition with other physicians. It is more about
patient perceptions and behaviours.
(d) Correct: This is the correct answer. The passage
emphasizes the hesitancy of many patients in seeking
second opinions when making health decisions,
highlighting the reasons behind this reluctance.
15
 4 Strengthening of
At the heart of every argument is a central idea, much like the
main message you want to share. Strengthening an argument is
about making that core idea even more solid, giving it a firm
foundation so that others are more likely to believe or agree with
what you’re saying. strengthening an argument is like adding
sturdy pillars to a building to make it more robust and convincing.
Imagine your argument as a bridge that needs to carry the weight
of your ideas across to others. Strengthening that bridge involves
reinforcing it with strong materials, making sure it won’t wobble
or break when others examine it. Think of your argument like
a puzzle, where every piece plays a role. Strengthening comes
into play when you notice some gaps or missing pieces. It’s about
finding those gaps and putting in additional bits of information
or support to make your argument whole and complete. A strong
argument is like a shield, defending itself against doubts and
questions. Strengthening involves adding layers of protection
by providing extra evidence, clarifying any assumptions, and
addressing possible doubts that someone might have. The aim is
to make your argument so sturdy that it’s hard to poke holes in.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
STRENGTHENING AND ASSUMPTION
QUESTIONS
Imagine your argument as a house. Strengthening is like adding
more bricks to make that house sturdier. The question asks, “Can
you make the argument stronger?” It’s like giving your house
more walls, making it more convincing. The answer could be
a small addition (just a window), or a big one (an entire new
room). If it makes the argument even a tiny bit better, it’s a win!
Assumption questions, on the other hand, are like looking for
the hidden superhero behind the scenes. They want to know,
“What must be true for this argument to make sense?” Imagine
your argument is a car, and the assumption is the fuel it runs
on. Without that fuel (assumption), the car (argument) won’t go
anywhere. Assumptions are the silent helpers, the things we don’t
say out loud but need for our argument to be true.
In simple terms, Strengthening is about making the
argument more convincing, adding whatever helps, big or small.
The assumption is finding the missing pieces, the things we don’t
say but need for our argument to be true. Strengthen questions
ask you to support the argument in any way possible. Assumption
questions ask you to identify a statement that the argument
assumes or supposes. Let us try to gain more clarity on this aspect
by understanding the following example:
an Argument
Argument: “Eating more fruits is good for health”.
Strengthen: “Studies show people who eat more fruits have
fewer health issues”.
Assumption: “Fruits provide essential nutrients that contribute
to good health”.
Thus, in strengthening, we add more evidence. In assumption,
we find the hidden, unsaid things that make the argument complete.
So, strengthening is like adding bricks to a house, while the
assumption is finding the secret ingredient that makes it work!
Strengthen Question Stems
Here are some common question stems for strengthen questions:
“Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the
argument?”
“Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the
statement?
“Which of the following, if true, does most to justify the
conclusion above?”
“Each of the following, if true, supports the claim above
EXCEPT:”
The author’s argument would be most reinforced by which of
the following?
The argument assumes which of the following to be true for its
conclusion to be valid?
What fact, if confirmed, would best bolster the argument?
Which of the following, if added to the argument, would make
the conclusion more likely to be true?
How to Strengthen an Argument?
Let us try to understand a step-by-step approach to solving a
strengthening question and explore how to do this effectively.
 Step 1: Identify the Conclusion: Imagine the argument as
a journey, and the conclusion is the destination. Your job is
to make that destination more reachable. Ask, “Does this
answer choice help the author reach their destination?” If
yes, you’ve found the right answer.
 Step 2: Personalize the Argument: Make the argument
your own. Put yourself in the shoes of the author and think,
“How would this be true in my world?” Personalizing helps
you connect with the argument, making it easier to see what
could make it stronger.
 Step 3: Look for Weaknesses: Even superheroes have
weaknesses, and so do arguments. If you spot a crack or
hole in the argument, find an answer choice that acts like
a patch. It’s about closing gaps and making the argument
more airtight. For example: If someone says, “I always have
good weather on my vacations”, but forgets to mention they
only go to tropical places, the weakness is not considering
different destinations. An answer that says, “They always go
to tropical places” would strengthen the argument.
 Step 4: Identify Missing Links: Arguments are like chains;
if a link is missing, the chain weakens. Find those missing
links, often assumptions made by the author. Bringing
these assumptions to light makes the argument stronger by
confirming the author’s thinking.
 Step 5:Validate Analogies and Surveys: If the argument
uses analogies (comparing things) or surveys, those
comparisons need to be valid. Look for answer choices that
support the validity of these comparisons. It’s like making
sure the foundation of a building is solid before adding more
floors.
 Step 6: Varying Degrees of Strength: Remember, the right
answer doesn’t always have to make the argument super
strong. It could be a little boost or a major power-up. This
flexibility makes these questions tricky. The correct answer
is the one that moves the argument in the right direction, no
matter how big or small the step.
So we can conclude that strengthening arguments is
about reinforcing the logic, closing gaps, and adding supportive
elements. It’s the art of turning a good argument into a great one,
making it harder for doubts to creep in.
Incorrect Answer Traps or Pitfalls in Strengthen
Questions
Navigating through Strengthen questions is like avoiding hidden
traps. Let us uncover the common pitfalls to steer clear of when
seeking the right answer:
1. Opposite Answers: Imagine you’re trying to build a bridge,
but someone hands you materials that will make it collapse
instead. Opposite answers do just that—they weaken the
argument instead of strengthening it. They may seem
attractive because they’re closely tied to the conclusion, but
they lead you in the wrong direction. For Example: If the
argument says, “Eating more fruits is healthy”, an opposite
answer might say, “Studies show people who eat more fruits
are less healthy”.
2. Shell Game Answers: Picture a game of hide and seek where
the answer hides behind a shell. Shell Game answers present
an idea similar to what’s in the argument, but with a subtle
twist that makes it incorrect. It’s like looking for your keys,
finding something similar, but it doesn’t open the door. For
Example: If the argument talks about “increased exercise
leads to weight loss”, a Shell Game answer might say, “More
movement is linked to shedding pounds”, subtly changing
the concept.
Strengthening of an Argument
3. Out-of-Scope Answers: Imagine discussing the benefits
of running, and someone suddenly talks about the latest
fashion trends. Out of Scope answers miss the point entirely,
supporting ideas unrelated or only vaguely connected to the
argument. For example: If the argument is about “the impact
of technology on education”, an out-of-scope answer might
talk about “technological advancements in medicine”.
These pitfalls are like shiny distractions on the path to the
correct answer. Opposite answers mislead, Shell Game answers
play tricks, and Out of Scope answers take you on a detour. Keep
an eye out for these traps, and you’ll be better equipped to choose
the answer that genuinely strengthens the argument.
Illustration
1. Consumer Advocate: Many household cleaners contain
ingredients which are highly toxic when ingested by children
or pets. Because of this significant risk, I propose a law
prohibiting the use of such toxic ingredients in household
cleaners. Which of the following, if true, provides the most
support for the argument above?
(a) Most toxic household cleaners have labels which clearly
warn of their toxicity.
(b) There are many different types of household cleaners,
and some are more 209 effective than others.
(c) When the use of household cleaners is discontinued,
harmful bacteria are more likely to propagate in areas
where children and pets are commonly found.
(d) The toxic ingredients in most household cleaners could
be replaced by comparably priced, non-toxic ingredients
of equal or better quality.
Sol. Argument Recap: The consumer advocate argues for a law
prohibiting the use of toxic ingredients in household cleaners
due to the risk they pose when ingested by children or pets.
To strengthen this argument, we need to find an answer
choice that provides additional support for the proposed law.
Option (a): This choice does not support the argument
because warning labels, while important for awareness, do
not eliminate the risk presented by toxic ingredients.
Option (b): This choice is irrelevant to the argument as
effectiveness does not address the safety concern raised by
the consumer advocate.
Option (c): This weakens the argument by suggesting a
potential negative consequence of discontinuing household
cleaners. It does not support the proposed law.
Option (d): This is a strong contender. It supports the
argument by suggesting a feasible alternative that maintains
the quality of household cleaners while eliminating toxicity.
Option (d) provides the most support for the argument,
proposing a solution that aligns with the consumer advocate’s
goal of safer household cleaners without compromising
quality.
17
Causality and Strengthen Questions
Because Strengthen and Weaken questions require you to perform
opposite tasks, to strengthen a causal conclusion you take the
exact opposite approach that you would in a Weaken question.
Strengthening causal conclusions is like building a fortress around
the cause-and-effect relationship. Unlike weakening, where we
look for weak spots, here, we reinforce the link between cause
and effect. Let us understand the steps involved in solving this
type of question:
1. Identify the Causal Relationship: Start by understanding
the cause-and-effect relationship presented in the argument.
Pinpoint what the author claims is the cause leading to
a specific effect. For example: In an argument stating,
“Increased exercise leads to weight loss”, identify exercise
as the cause and weight loss as the effect.
2. Eliminate Alternate Causes: Look for any potential
alternative causes that could also explain the effect. If the
argument asserts a specific cause, showing that other potential
causes are unlikely strengthens the case for the stated cause.
For example: If arguing that “Increased exercise leads to
weight loss”, consider and dismiss alternative causes like
diet changes or metabolism shifts.
3. Demonstrate Cause Leads to Effect: Provide examples
or evidence showing that when the cause occurs, the effect
consistently follows. This reinforces the idea that the stated
cause is indeed linked to the claimed effect. For example,
Offer instances where individuals increased their exercise,
resulting in noticeable weight loss.
4. Show Absence of Cause, Absence of Effect: Illustrate
scenarios where the absence of the cause corresponds to
the absence of the effect. This strengthens the argument by
emphasizing that the presence of the cause is necessary for
the effect to occur. Example: Highlight situations where
individuals who did not increase their exercise did not
experience significant weight loss.
5. Eliminate Reversed Relationship Possibility: Rule out
the possibility that the effect could be causing the cause,
confirming the intended direction of the cause-and-effect
relationship. Example: Ensure that weight loss is not caused
by increased exercise by providing evidence or reasoning that
supports the claim that exercise leads to weight loss.
6. Validate Data Accuracy: Verify the accuracy and reliability
of the data supporting the causal claim. Any inaccuracies in
the data could undermine the argument, so ensure the data
is sound. Example: Confirm that the studies or information
used to establish the link between increased exercise and
weight loss are credible and accurate.
In Simple Terms, We’re like detectives securing our case.
We rule out other suspects, show the cause consistently leads to
the effect, demonstrate the absence of cause means the absence
of effect, eliminate the chance of a reversed relationship and
make sure our evidence (data) is spot-on. This approach, though
reversed from weakening, is like adding layers of protection to
our causal conclusion. By following these steps, we fortify our
argument, making it more robust against doubts or challenges.
18
Illustration
Among the three 24-hour pharmacies in the city, Sonny’s
Pharmacy is consistently the 212 most profitable. Sonny claims
that since the three pharmacies carry the same products, the store’s
success is attributable to its superior customer service.
2. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports
Sonny’s claim?
(a) The other two pharmacies in town advertise less than
Sonny’s.
(b) The other two pharmacies’ products are sold for
approximately the same prices as similar products at
Sonny’s.
(c) Sonny’s is near the centre of the city, a location that is
convenient for most of the city’s pharmacy customers.
(d) The three pharmacies in town often require different
wait times for the same prescription.
Sol. Argument Recap: Sonny’s Pharmacy claims its consistent
profitability is due to superior customer service compared
to the other two 24-hour pharmacies in the city.
To strengthen Sonny’s claim, we need an answer choice that
aligns with the idea that Sonny’s superior customer service
is indeed contributing to its success.
Option (a): This doesn’t directly relate to customer service,
which is the focus of the argument. Advertising differences
might not necessarily explain Sonny’s superior profitability.
Option (b): Again, this doesn’t address customer service.
Similar pricing doesn’t necessarily mean similar service
quality.
Option (c): This is a strong contender. It suggests that
Sonny’s prime location might be contributing to its success,
supporting the claim that customers find it convenient,
possibly due to superior service.
Option (d): This is relevant to customer service. If Sonny’s
consistently has shorter wait times, it supports the idea that
superior service contributes to its success.
Thus, Option (d) provides the most direct support for Sonny’s
claim. If Sonny’s Pharmacy consistently offers shorter wait
times compared to the other two pharmacies, it strengthens
the argument that superior customer service is a key factor
in its consistent profitability.
Application Drill
3. Solve the following question on strengthening of argument
on your own and to verify your answer, consider the
explanation that follows:
Argument: Most managers in the financial industry work
for several different companies throughout their careers,
seeking new employment in response to market pressures
and changing corporate policies. Paxton Investment
Group, however, is renowned in the financial sector for its
exceptionally low managerial turnover. Paxton attributes
its ability to retain managers to its extremely generous
managerial salaries. Which of the following, if true, would
Critical Reasoning PW
 provide the strongest support for Paxton Investment Group’s
statement regarding its manager’s reluctance to change
companies?
(a) Many managers in the financial sector have spouses who
also work in finance.
(b) The majority of managers at Paxton Investment Group
had previously worked at several other companies before
working at Paxton.
(c) Managers in the financial industry consistently
list “income” as the greatest motivator for seeking
employment with a new firm.
(d) Investment firms with lower managerial salaries than
those at Paxton often compensate by offering their
managers performance-based bonuses.
Sol. Argument Recap: Paxton Investment Group claims its low
managerial turnover is due to its exceptionally generous
managerial salaries.
To strengthen Paxton’s claim, we need an answer choice
that aligns with the idea that generous salaries are indeed a
key factor in low turnover.
Strengthening of an Argument
Option (a): This doesn’t directly relate to salary or turnover.
Family situations might not be a primary driver for Paxton’s
success in retaining managers.
Option (b): This weakens the argument. If managers at
Paxton had a history of working at multiple companies, it
suggests that turnover might be influenced by factors other
than Paxton’s generous salaries.
Option (c): This directly supports Paxton’s claim. If income
is a significant motivator for changing jobs, then Paxton’s
generous salaries would indeed contribute to lower turnover.
Option (d): This suggests an alternative compensation
strategy but doesn’t strongly support Paxton’s claim about
the impact of generous salaries on retention.
Thus, Option (c) provides the strongest support for Paxton’s
claim. If managers in the financial industry consistently
prioritize income, Paxton’s generous salaries would indeed
contribute to the reluctance of its managers to change
companies.
19
 5 Weakening of an Argument
Weaken questions require you to select the answer choice that
undermines the author’s argument as decisively as possible.
Weakening an argument is like finding cracks in a building.
Imagine the argument as a structure built with supporting ideas
(premises) leading to a main point (conclusion). Weakening
means spotting weak spots or assumptions in this structure. To
weaken, we often go after hidden assumptions—those beliefs that
are crucial but not clearly stated. By questioning or disproving
these hidden ideas, we weaken the link between the supporting
ideas and the main point. It’s like taking out a vital piece from
a puzzle, making the whole picture less convincing. Only by
understanding the structure of the argument can you gain the
perspective necessary to attack the author’s position.
Another way is by bringing in information that disagrees
with the supporting ideas or main point, creating a gap in the
logical flow of the argument. Also, arguments often say one
thing causes another. Weakening can happen by questioning
or disproving these cause-and-effect relationships. A strong
weakening move suggests other explanations for what we see.
This hints that the main point might not be the only possible
explanation. Think of it like exploring different ideas to solve a
mystery—each idea weakens the case for one definite answer.
Additionally, sharing counterarguments or evidence supporting
a different view weakens the author’s position. It’s like telling
a different story that challenges the original one’s believability.
In simple terms, weakening an argument is like gently shaking
the foundation, making the link between supporting ideas and the
main point less sturdy. It’s a skill of finding hidden assumptions,
bringing in conflicting facts, and showing other possible views.
THE QUESTION STEMS FROM A WEAKENING
QUESTION
Following are the question stems which help to identify that the
question is asking us to weaken the argument:
“Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the
argument above?”
“Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the
conclusion drawn above?”
“Which of the following, if true, most calls into question the
claim above?
“Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the
conclusion above?”
“Which of the following, if known, is evidence that contradicts
the hypothesis above?”
“Which of the following, if discovered, would be evidence
against the speculation above?”
How to Weaken an Argument?
Because arguments are made up of premises and conclusions,
you can safely assume that these are the parts you must attack to
weaken an argument. Let us try to understand the steps to weaken
an argument.
 Step 1: Spot the Main Point: Identify the big idea or
conclusion the argument is trying to prove. It’s like finding
the boss in a video game. In an argument, it’s usually the
most crucial point the author wants you to believe.
 Step 2: Look for Assumptions: Assumptions are like hidden
beliefs holding the argument together. Look for things the
author is taking for granted. For example, if the argument says
“People love ice cream”, an assumption could be “Everyone
can easily afford ice cream”.
 Step 3: Question Cause-and-Effect: If the argument says
one thing causes another, question it. Ask, “Is there another
reason this could happen?” For instance, if the argument
claims “Eating chocolate causes happiness”, you might
wonder if other factors contribute to happiness too.
 Step 4: Introduce other Explanations: Suggest different
ideas that could explain what’s happening. This shows there
might be more than one answer. For instance, if the argument
says “People buy more umbrellas when it rains”, you might
suggest that people buy umbrellas because they’re on sale,
not necessarily because it’s raining.
 Step 5: Bring in Counterarguments: Present arguments that
go against the main point. It’s like telling a different story
that challenges the original one. If the argument says “All
students love homework”, you could counter it by saying,
“Some students find homework stressful”.
 Step 6: Disprove Supporting Evidence: If the argument
relies on facts, question their accuracy. If the facts are shaky,
the argument weakens. It’s like checking if the pieces of
evidence fit together. For example, if the argument states
“All cars run on solar power”, you might question if that’s
true for every single car.
Weakening is about gently shaking the argument’s foundation.
 By finding weak spots, questioning assumptions, and
suggesting other possibilities, you’re like the detective
unravelling the mystery behind the argument.
Common Weakening Scenario
Several scenarios that occur in Weakened question stimuli are
easy to recognize and attack:
1. Incomplete Information: Sometimes, the author tells only
part of the story. It’s like reading a book missing crucial
chapters. To weaken this, you can introduce new possibilities
or information that the author overlooked. Imagine finding
those missing chapters and showing how they change the tale.
2. Improper Comparison: Imagine comparing apples to
oranges—they’re different! Similarly, authors might compare
things that are fundamentally unlike. To weaken this, you
just need to point out why the things being compared aren’t
alike. It’s like saying, “Wait, these are different!”
3. Overly Broad Conclusion: Picture someone claiming
everyone loves pizza when, in reality, only a few people
do. That’s making a conclusion way broader than what the
evidence supports. To weaken this, show why the conclusion
is too big for the evidence. It’s like adjusting the story to fit
the facts.
These are like finding plot holes in a movie—common
problems that, when addressed, make the whole story more
solid. While there are more ways arguments can be weak,
focusing on these three often helps crack the code in CLAT
questions.
Incorrect Answer Traps or Common Pitfalls
Weaken questions on the CLAT can sometimes feel like navigating
a maze. Let’s dive into three tricky spots you might encounter:
1. Opposite Answers: Imagine intending to head south but
realizing you’re going north—that’s the vibe of opposite
answers. These choices do the exact opposite of what’s
needed. They appear friendly, fitting snugly with the
argument, but in reality, they mislead you, strengthening the
argument instead of weakening it.
2. Shell Game Answers: Remember the Shell Game from Must
Be True questions? It’s back. In Weaken questions, it’s like
finding puzzle pieces that almost fit but are slightly off. The
idea from the stimulus shows up, but it’s tweaked enough
to be wrong. Watch out for these crafty choices, aiming to
disrupt conclusions similar to the ones in the stimulus.
3. Out of Scope Answers: Picture driving towards your
destination, and suddenly you’re discussing unrelated
detours. Out-of-scope answers do just that—they take you
off the main road. They bring up issues that don’t connect
to the argument, leaving you wondering why you ventured
into this irrelevant territory.
Illustration
Passage
Consumer: The problem with bottled spring water is that it is no more
healthy than well-filtered tap water, and many companies produce
effective water filtration systems for home use. Further, the price of
Weakening of an Argument
a 16-ounce bottle of water is, on average, over ten times that of the
same amount of water run through a home filtration system. Thus,
most bottled spring water producers will soon go out of business.
1. Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the
argument presented above?
(a) Several of the companies that bottle and sell spring water
have gone out of business during the past five years.
(b) Because of the inherent costs associated with bottling
and transport, most bottled spring water suppliers are
unable to reduce the wholesale prices they must charge
for bottled spring water.
(c) Most consumers who regularly purchase bottled spring
water base their beverage purchase decisions exclusively
on taste preference.
(d) Some people prefer the taste of tap water to that of bottled
spring water.
Sol. Option (a): This option is incorrect. If several bottled spring
water companies have gone out of business in recent years,
it strengthens the author’s argument that most producers will
soon go out of business.
Option (b): This option is also incorrect. If bottled water
suppliers cannot reduce wholesale prices due to inherent
costs, it supports the author’s claim that the price difference
will persist, strengthening the argument.
Option (c): This is the correct answer. If consumers base
their bottled water purchases solely on taste preference, it
weakens the argument. The author’s focus is on health and
cost, not taste.
Option (d): This option is incorrect. The vague term “some”
does not provide meaningful information, and the preference
for tap water is irrelevant to the argument.
Thus option C is the correct answer.
Application Drill
Read the arguments and solve the question on the weakening of
an argument. After solving the questions, refer to the explanations
to verify your answer.
Passage 1
Argument: Over the past decade, the implementation of artificial
intelligence (AI) in various industries has led to unprecedented
levels of efficiency and productivity. Companies that integrate
AI technologies into their operations experience significant cost
savings and improved outcomes. Therefore, it can be concluded
that widespread adoption of AI is the key to economic prosperity
in the future.
2. Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the
argument presented above?
(a) Recent studies show that many companies that adopted
AI technologies faced initial disruptions, resulting in
temporary decreases in productivity and increased costs.
(b) The majority of businesses that have not implemented
AI technologies report steady growth and profitability
over the past decade.
21
 (c) AI technologies are still in the early stages of
development, with many potential risks and uncertainties
regarding their long-term impact on the economy.
(d) Companies that heavily rely on AI technologies often
face challenges related to data security and privacy
breaches, leading to financial losses and damage to
reputation.
Sol. Option (a) This option weakens the argument by presenting
evidence that challenges the claimed immediate benefits of
AI adoption. If implementing AI can lead to disruptions and
increased costs, it undermines the notion of widespread cost
savings.
Option (b) This option weakens the argument by suggesting
that businesses without AI technologies have still experienced
growth and profitability, questioning the argument’s premise
that AI is the sole key to economic prosperity.
Option (c) This option weakens the argument by introducing
the idea that AI technologies are still in the early stages,
implying that the full impact and consequences are not yet
known. It introduces an element of uncertainty.
Option (d) This option weakens the argument by highlighting
the potential drawbacks of heavy reliance on AI, such
as security and privacy issues. It introduces the idea that
the benefits of AI may come with significant risks and
downsides.
The most effective weakening option is (a), as it directly
challenges the immediate positive outcomes of AI adoption
presented in the argument.
Passage 2
Argument: The construction of a high-speed railway network
connecting major cities is essential for economic growth and
environmental sustainability. High-speed trains are more energy-
efficient than traditional transportation modes, and the reduced
travel time between cities promotes business activities and
tourism. Therefore, governments should prioritize investing in
high-speed railways to foster both economic development and
environmental conservation.
22
3. Which of the following, if true, most significantly weakens
the argument presented above?
(a) The construction and maintenance costs of high-speed
railways are significantly higher than those of traditional
transportation modes, leading to substantial financial
burdens on governments.
(b) Advances in telecommuting technologies have enabled
many businesses to operate effectively without the need
for frequent physical travel between cities.
(c) Environmental studies indicate that the manufacturing
and disposal of the specialized materials used in high-
speed trains contribute to significant carbon emissions.
(d) Countries with extensive high-speed railway networks
have experienced a decline in tourism revenue, as
visitors prefer alternative modes of transportation for
leisure travel.
Sol. Option (a) This option weakens the argument by highlighting
the financial challenges associated with high-speed railway
construction. If the costs are substantial, it questions the
economic feasibility and benefit of such projects.
Option (b) This option weakens the argument by suggesting
an alternative solution to promoting business activities. If
telecommuting reduces the need for frequent travel, the
argument’s premise about the economic benefits of high-
speed railways is undermined.
Option (c) This option weakens the argument by introducing
environmental concerns related to the manufacturing and
disposal of materials used in high-speed trains. It challenges
the claim of environmental sustainability.
Option (d) This option weakens the argument by presenting
evidence that extensive high-speed railway networks may
lead to a decline in tourism revenue. If visitors prefer
alternative modes of transportation, it questions the
argument’s assumption about the positive impact on tourism.
Thus. the most effective weakening option is (a), as it
addresses both the economic and financial aspects of high-
speed railway construction.
Critical Reasoning PW
 6 Understanding Inferences
In our day-to-day conversations, the term “inference” often
alludes to likely assumptions or probable scenarios. If a friend
expresses a penchant for chocolate ice cream, we might infer
she likes chocolate or perhaps harbours a sweet tooth. However,
CLAT takes a more stringent stance. In the CLAT universe,
an inference is not a plausible scenario; it’s an undisputed fact
that unequivocally emanates from the evidence embedded in
the argument. Consider the analogy of our friend’s ice cream
preference. CLAT insists on certainties: if she declares chocolate
as her favourite, she categorically cannot prefer vanilla. The test
demands absolutes, a departure from the probabilistic inferences
we might draw in everyday situations.
To navigate the intricacies of CLAT inferences, it’s
imperative to internalize their distinct character. Correct
inferences on the CLAT aren’t mere assumptions; they are
ironclad truths derived from the argument’s premises. If someone
claims chocolate as a favourite, it’s not a matter of probability;
it inherently excludes the possibility of another flavour being
preferred more. For CLAT, inferences are necessitated by the
logic woven into the argument. If a conclusion is what the author
explicitly states, an inference is an unspoken truth that logically
follows. While conclusions might be debatable or opinion-based,
inferences must withstand the scrutiny of unwavering logic.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONCLUSION AND
INFERENCE
A conclusion is the author’s explicit statement, laid out for
scrutiny. On the other hand, an inference is an implicit truth,
seamlessly integrated into the fabric of the argument. The CLAT
mandates precision, demanding that inferences be undeniably
supported by the argument’s evidence. Consider a scenario
where an author concludes that investing in renewable energy
is economically sound. The conclusion is explicit—the author
asserts that it’s economically viable. An inference, however,
might delve into unspoken certainties, such as the assumption that
renewable energy sources are becoming more cost-effective over
time, which logically buttresses the economic viability.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFERENCES AND
STRENGTHENING QUESTIONS
In inference questions, we are asked to draw conclusions or
understandings based on the information provided in the argument.
The key here is that the argument itself doesn’t explicitly state a
conclusion; instead, we need to figure out what can reasonably
be inferred from the information given. It’s like reading between
the lines and making logical connections without the argument
explicitly telling us what to conclude. For example: “If the
passage talks about rising global temperatures and the decline in
ice caps, an inference might be that climate change is occurring”.
On the other hand, Strengthen questions involve supporting
the argument or conclusion provided in the passage. The argument
usually contains a conclusion or a claim, and our task is to find
an answer choice that makes that conclusion more robust or
believable. It’s like adding evidence or support to make the
argument stronger. For example: “If the conclusion is that a new
drug is effective in treating a disease, a strengthening answer might
provide additional data or studies supporting the drug’s efficacy”.
Thus we can conclude that inference questions ask us to
uncover implied conclusions based on the information presented,
without the argument explicitly stating a conclusion. It’s about
making logical connections. On the other hand, Strengthen
questions require us to find an answer that adds support to the
conclusion already present in the argument. One involves drawing
logical inferences, while the other involves making the argument
more convincing by providing additional support.
Now, Let us understand through some examples of
inferences:
Example 1: Exclusive Preferences:
Argument: Sara claims that hiking is her favourite outdoor
activity.
Inference: Sara does not prefer any other outdoor activity over
hiking.
This inference holds because the term “favourite” implies a
level of exclusivity. If hiking is her favourite, any other outdoor
activity automatically takes a backseat. If someone claims a specific
preference, like chocolate being their favourite, it necessarily
excludes the possibility of another flavour being preferred more.
Example 2: Comparative Experiences:
Argument: John asserts that the new restaurant in town serves
the best pizza.
Inference: John has tried pizzas from various restaurants to make
a valid claim.
For John to assert that a particular restaurant serves the best
pizza, he must have sampled pizzas from multiple establishments.
The logic hinges on the necessity of comparative experiences
to validate the claim. If the argument discusses a choice or
preference, the individual must have had relevant experiences or
comparisons to make a valid claim.
Inference Question Stems
Following is the non-exhaustive list of types of question stems
that will help you to find out that the question wants you to find
out the inference in the passage.
Which answer can be “ logically concluded” or the “statements
above most strongly support which of the following
conclusions”?
Which answer can be “properly inferred”?
The statements above “best support” which of the following
“assertions”?
Which answer “must be true” based upon the above statements?
“The author implies which of the following extrapolations?”
“What unspoken conclusion is supported by the passage?”
“From the author’s statements, one can infer a conclusion that
is not explicitly stated, such as..”.
“The author’s statements logically lead to the conclusion
that..”.
“The information in the passage most strongly implies that..”.
“The passage suggests which of the following about..”.
Common Answer Traps
The most tempting wrong answers on Inference questions tend
to revolve around making Real World Inferences—things that we
would reasonably assume to be true in the real world but don’t
have to be true:
1. Going Too Far: This trap makes you think something is true
even if it’s not firmly supported by the argument. Imagine
if someone says they don’t like apples anymore. A tricky
answer might say they now love oranges. It sounds logical,
but the original statement only talked about a change, not the
complete opposite.
2. Too Specific or Too General: Sometimes, wrong answers
give you a specific detail or a broad idea that’s not entirely
backed up by the argument. If the argument says it’s raining
today, a wrong answer might say there’s a hurricane. The
first statement only talked about rain, not a big storm.
3. Reverse Direction or Switch Terms: This tricky move
involves changing the order of things or switching words
around. If someone says eating cake causes happiness, a
wrong answer might say happiness causes people to eat cake.
It seems close, but it’s flipping the cause and effect.
4. Out of Scope: These answers bring in new info that wasn’t in
the argument. Imagine someone says they’re reading a book.
A wrong answer might say they love watching movies. It’s
not about what was said; it’s adding unrelated things.
5. Ignoring Possibilities: Sometimes, wrong answers ignore
other possible scenarios. If someone says they’re not eating
cookies anymore, a tricky choice might say they’ve switched
to ice cream. It sounds reasonable, but maybe they’re not
having desserts at all!
24
Why are They Tricky?
These traps seem right because they use real-world logic or sound
like they fit. However, the key is to stick to what the argument
directly says. The right answer is something that can be confidently
said based on that info, not just something that kinda makes sense.
Avoiding Traps: Stay focused on what’s in the argument.
Don’t bring in extra info or assume too much. If it’s not spelt out
in the argument, be cautious. The right answer is like a detective’s
conclusion—based on the clues given, not wild guesses.
Illustration
Argument: The city council has recently implemented a bike-
sharing program, aiming to reduce traffic congestion and promote
environmentally friendly transportation. The program provides
convenient bike stations throughout the city where users can rent
bikes for short trips. Based on the information provided, what can
be inferred about the city council’s goals?
Following can be the possible inferences:
1. The city council is concerned about traffic congestion and
its environmental impact.
Inference Explanation: Since the bike-sharing program
targets traffic congestion and promotes environmentally
friendly transportation, it can be inferred that the city council
is concerned about these issues.
2. The city council believes that short-distance trips are a
significant contributor to traffic congestion.
Inference Explanation: The implementation of a bike-
sharing program for short trips suggests that the city council
considers short-distance travel as a key factor in traffic
congestion.
3. The city council values alternative transportation methods
to reduce reliance on private cars.
Inference Explanation: The introduction of a bike-sharing
program indicates a commitment to alternative transportation,
emphasizing a desire to reduce the dependence on private cars.
Application Drill
Read the following passages and solve the questions on inference.
To verify your answer, consult the explanations that follow:
1. Argument: A recent study found a correlation between
regular exercise and improved cognitive function in adults
over the age of 50. The participants who engaged in physical
activity three times a week showed a significant increase
in memory retention and problem-solving skills compared
to those who did not exercise regularly. Based on the
information provided, what can be reasonably inferred about
the relationship between exercise and cognitive function in
adults over 50?
(a) Adults who exercise regularly will never experience
cognitive decline.
(b) Engaging in physical activity at least three times a week
is a guarantee of enhanced cognitive function.
Critical Reasoning PW
 (c) The study suggests a positive association between regular
exercise and improved memory and problem-solving
skills in adults over 50.
(d) All adults over 50 will experience the same degree of
cognitive improvement if they exercise regularly.
Sol. Option (a) This statement is too extreme. While the
study shows a correlation, it doesn’t mean that exercising
guarantees complete immunity from cognitive decline. It
overstates the findings and goes beyond what the study
suggests.
Option (b) Similar to option (a), this statement is too
absolute. The study demonstrates a correlation, but it
doesn’t provide a guarantee that everyone who exercises
will experience enhanced cognitive function.
Option (c) Correct. This option accurately reflects the
inference based on the study. The study establishes a positive
association between regular exercise and improved memory
and problem-solving skills in adults over 50.
Option (d) This option is too broad. The study doesn’t
make a claim about every individual experiencing the same
degree of cognitive improvement. It focuses on a correlation,
acknowledging variations among participants.
Thus, Option (c) appropriately captures the essence of
the study’s findings without going beyond the established
correlation.
2. Argument: A recent survey conducted among employees
of XYZ Corporation revealed a significant decrease in job
satisfaction levels. The employees cited inadequate work-
life balance, increased workload, and minimal recognition
for their contributions as the primary reasons for their
dissatisfaction. What can be reasonably inferred about the
factors influencing job satisfaction among employees at
XYZ Corporation?
Understanding Inferences
(a) Work-life balance, workload, and recognition are the
only factors contributing to job satisfaction at XYZ
Corporation.
(b) Other external factors, not mentioned in the survey, play
a negligible role in influencing job satisfaction among
XYZ Corporation employees.
(c) Addressing issues related to work-life balance, workload,
and recognition could potentially lead to an improvement
in job satisfaction among XYZ Corporation employees.
(d) Employees at XYZ Corporation have never been
satisfied with their jobs.
Sol. Option (a) This option is too extreme. While the mentioned
factors are highlighted in the survey, it doesn’t mean that
they are the sole contributors to job satisfaction. There could
be other factors not explicitly mentioned.
Option (b) This statement is too restrictive. The survey
only focused on certain factors, and it doesn’t imply that
external factors have a negligible role. It’s an unwarranted
assumption.
Option (c) Correct. This option aligns with a reasonable
inference. The survey identifies specific issues affecting
job satisfaction, and addressing these concerns could lead
to an improvement. It doesn’t make absolute claims about
the guaranteed outcome.
Option (d) This option is an extreme statement and goes
beyond the scope of the survey. The survey reflects a
snapshot in time and doesn’t imply perpetual dissatisfaction
among employees.
Thus, Option (c) appropriately extends from the survey
findings without making sweeping statements about the
exclusivity of factors or the perpetual dissatisfaction of
employees.
25
 7 Cause and Effect Reasoning
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF CAUSALITY?
When we try to understand events, we often look for reasons
behind why things happened. This natural inclination leads us to
cause-and-effect reasoning, where we claim that one thing causes
another or is caused by another. On the CLAT, you’ll encounter
cause-and-effect reasoning in many Critical Reasoning problems,
typically in conclusions where an author mistakenly asserts that
one event is the direct cause of another. For instance: “Last week,
Apple announced a quarterly deficit, and the stock market dropped
10 points. Thus, Apple’s announcement must have caused the
drop”.
However, most causal conclusions on the CLAT are flawed
because there could be alternative explanations for the claimed
relationship. Another cause might explain the effect, a third event
might have caused both the stated cause and effect, the situation
might be reversed, or the events might be related but not in a
causal way. Sometimes, the entire occurrence could be the result
of chance. In simple terms, causality means saying that one event
makes another event happen. The cause is the event that triggers
the other event, and the effect is the event that follows the cause.
It’s crucial to note that the cause must happen before the effect,
and the cause is like the activator or ignitor in this relationship.
The effect always occurs after the cause in terms of time.
Signifiers of Cause and Effect
Following is the list of words which help us to introduce cause
and effect relationship:
Caused by
Responsible for
Because of
Reason for
Leads to
Induced by
Promoted by
Determined by
Produced by
Product of
Played the role of
Was a factor of
Is an effect of
Causality in Premise and Causality in Conclusions
Understanding how cause-effect statements function within
arguments is crucial for navigating through reasoning problems.
Causal statements in an argument can either be in the premise or
the conclusion. The distinction between the two holds the key to
identifying potential flaws in the reasoning. If the causal assertion
appears in the conclusion, or if the conclusion presumes a cause-
and-effect relationship, there’s a higher likelihood of flawed
reasoning. Let’s delve into examples to illustrate these scenarios.
Example 1: Causal Conclusion:
Premise: In North America, people drink a lot of milk.
Premise: There is a high frequency of cancer in North America.
Conclusion: Therefore, drinking milk causes cancer.
In this instance, the author concludes that drinking milk
causes cancer-based on the observed correlation. However, this
conclusion is flawed, as correlation does not necessarily imply
causation. This example reflects a common type of error—
attributing causation without sufficient evidence.
Example 2: Causal Premise
Premise: Drinking milk causes cancer.
Premise: The residents of North America drink a lot of milk.
Conclusion: Therefore, in North America, there is a high
frequency of cancer among the residents.
Here, the author begins with a causal principle—establishing
that drinking milk causes cancer—and logically extends it to a
conclusion. This form of reasoning is generally considered valid.
While the CLAT often presents problems in a format similar to the
first example, where causal conclusions are flawed, it occasionally
introduces problems akin to the second example. Crucially,
if a causal claim is made in the premises, it doesn’t inherently
introduce a causal reasoning error. It tends to permit premises to
go unchallenged, focusing more on the reasoning that follows.
Authors are generally allowed to state a causal relationship in the
premise and build their argument from there.
Understanding these nuances helps test-takers distinguish
between valid causal reasoning and flawed causal reasoning. It
emphasizes the importance of critically examining where the
causal assertion is situated within an argument. This skill is
pivotal for addressing questions that involve cause-and-effect
relationships, enabling test-takers to identify and navigate through
reasoning errors effectively.
The Situation of Errors in Causality
Causal conclusions often emerge in Critical Reasoning questions
based on two common scenarios, each rooted in the temporal
relationship between events.
Scenario 1: Temporal Sequence (One Event Precedes Another)
When one event happens before another, there’s a common but
misleading tendency to assume a cause-and-effect relationship.
The classic example of a rooster crowing before the sun rises
illustrates the potential flaw in such reasoning. Despite the
rooster’s consistent crowing preceding sunrise, it is erroneous to
conclude that the rooster causes the sun to rise. This whimsical
example highlights the danger of hastily attributing causation
based solely on temporal sequence.
Scenario 2: Simultaneous Occurrence of Events
Another scenario leading to causal conclusions involves events
occurring simultaneously. Here, the assumption that one event
causes the other is again challenged. While it’s plausible that one
event may cause another, it’s equally possible that both events are
influenced by a third factor or are merely correlated without direct
causation.
A case in point is the correlation between ice cream
consumption and the murder rate. Concluding that consuming
ice cream causes a higher likelihood of committing murder
oversimplifies the relationship. In reality, both phenomena may
be outcomes of a shared cause—in this case, hot weather. When
temperatures rise, people are more inclined to consume ice cream,
and there may also be an increase in crime rates. This example
serves to caution against accepting causal connections without
considering alternative explanations. Understanding these
scenarios is vital for critical reasoning, as the CLAT often presents
arguments with temporal relationships between events. The
pitfalls lie in assuming causation based solely on chronological
order or simultaneous occurrence. Test-takers need to exercise
caution, recognizing that correlation does not always imply
causation and considering alternative explanations for observed
patterns.
The Central Assumption of Causal Conclusions
Understanding the underlying assumption in causal conclusions
is crucial for navigating Weaken, Strengthen, and Assumption
questions. A common misconception is assuming that CLAT’s
causal reasoning aligns with real-world assumptions. In reality,
CLAT speakers make extreme assumptions, believing that the
stated cause is the sole factor responsible for the effect, dismissing
all other potential causes. In real-world causal thinking, people
recognize that various causes can lead to the same effect,
acknowledging a multitude of cause-and-effect scenarios.
However, CLAT diverges from this by assuming exclusivity: if
one occurrence is deemed the cause, the CLAT speaker asserts
that it is the only cause and that it unfailingly produces the effect.
Cause and Effect Reasoning
Consider an example to illustrate this CLAT-centric
assumption:
Premise: Average temperatures are higher at the equator than in
any other area.
Premise: Individuals living at or near the equator tend to have
lower per-capita incomes than individuals living elsewhere.
Conclusion: Therefore, higher average temperatures cause lower
per-capita incomes.
This argument typifies flawed causal reasoning. While
the premises establish a connection (living at the equator), the
conclusion erroneously asserts that one element directly causes
the other. Speakers believe this singular cause-and-effect
relationship, considering it exclusive. In the real world, one might
entertain alternative causes, such as a lack of natural resources
affecting per-capita income, but CLAT reasoning dismisses these
possibilities. The powerful assumption comes to the forefront
in Weaken, Strengthen, and Assumption questions. In Weaken
questions, test-takers aim to challenge the assumed exclusivity of
the cause-effect relationship. By introducing alternative causes or
demonstrating that the stated cause does not always lead to the
effect, one weakens the argument.
Example:
Premise: A study concludes that increased coffee consumption
leads to higher productivity at work.
Conclusion: Therefore, employers should encourage their
employees to drink more coffee for better performance.
To weaken this, one might introduce alternative causes
like improved office environment or efficient time management
leading to increased productivity, challenging the assumption that
coffee consumption is the sole cause.
Effect on Strengthen and Assumption Questions:
Understanding this assumption is equally critical in Strengthen
and Assumption questions. In Strengthen questions, correct
answers often affirm the exclusivity assumption, reinforcing the
idea that the stated cause is the only contributor to the effect.
In Assumption questions, correct assumptions align with this
powerful belief, reinforcing the singular causal connection.
How to Attack a Causal Conclusion?
Weakening a cause-and-effect relationship in Weaken questions
typically involves executing one of the following tasks:
A. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect: Since the
author assumes there is only one cause, discovering another
potential cause undermines the conclusion. This strategy
challenges the exclusivity of the stated cause and effect.
Example: If an argument claims that increased coffee
consumption boosts workplace productivity, proposing
alternative causes like a collaborative office environment or
efficient task management weakens the notion that coffee is
the sole catalyst.
B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not
occur: This approach often manifests as a counterexample.
Given the author’s belief that the cause invariably produces
27
 the effect, any scenario where the cause happens, yet the
effect does not, weakens the conclusion. Example: If a
statement asserts that regular exercise guarantees weight
loss, presenting instances where individuals exercise but do
not lose weight challenges the assumed direct link between
exercise and weight loss.
C. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not
occur: Similar to the previous tactic, this can take the form
of a counterexample. As the author assumes a consistent
relationship between cause and effect, any situation where the
effect materializes without the cause weakens the conclusion.
Example: If an argument contends that studying late at
night guarantees academic success, demonstrating cases
where students succeed without late-night study sessions
undermines the claim of a necessary causal connection.
D. Show that the stated relationship is reversed: Given
the author’s belief in the accuracy of the cause-and-effect
relationship, revealing that the relationship is inverted
undermines the conclusion. This tactic challenges the
correctness of the claimed cause and effect. Example: If an
argument suggests that increased ice cream consumption
causes warmer weather, demonstrating that warmer weather
is the cause of increased ice cream consumption contradicts
the stated relationship.
E. Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used
to make the causal statement: When the data supporting a
causal statement are flawed, the validity of the entire causal
claim is questionable. Attacking the statistical foundation
calls into question the reliability of the cause-and-effect
assertion. Example: If an argument relies on data suggesting
a direct link between a specific diet and reduced stress,
exposing flaws or biases in the data weakens the confidence
in the causal claim.
In summary, tackling a causal conclusion in Weaken questions
involves challenging the assumed singular cause-and-effect
relationship. Whether by proposing alternative causes, providing
counterexamples, exposing instances where the cause does not lead to
the effect, revealing cases where the effect occurs without the cause,
demonstrating a reversed relationship, or questioning the statistical
integrity of the data, these strategies aim to erode the foundation of
the causal claim and introduce doubt into the argument.
Correlation v. Causation
Understanding the difference between correlation and causation
is crucial, and it’s like distinguishing between having an umbrella
and it raining. Just because you see people with umbrellas doesn’t
mean they caused the rain, right? Similarly, when two things happen
together, it’s called correlation. But don’t rush to say one thing
causes the other—that’s causation, and it’s trickier. Correlation
is like having a buddy who always shows up when you’re happy.
Your friend’s presence correlates with your happiness, but it
doesn’t mean your friend causes your joy. Likewise, when things
correlate, they happen at the same time, but there’s no guarantee
one causes the other. For instance, ice cream sales and drowning
incidents both rise in summer. Correlation, right? But ice cream
28
doesn’t cause drowning; it’s just hot outside, so people swim
more. Now, causation is a more serious commitment. It’s saying,
“Hey, this thing is making that thing happen”. Picture a rooster
crowing before sunrise. Does it make the sunrise? Of course not!
The crowing and sunrise correlate, but the rooster doesn’t cause
the sun to rise. In CLAT terms, causation insists that one event
directly triggers another, like flipping a switch turns on a light.
So, be cautious when folks mix up correlation and causation.
In the 1940s, some scientists thought antibiotics were superheroes,
making sick folks stronger. But wait—taking antibiotics and
getting better could simply correlate; it doesn’t mean the medicine
caused the improvement. Maybe folks got better because they
rested more or ate chicken soup. Let’s dive deeper. Imagine a
graph. If as ice cream sales soar, so do the number of sunburn
cases, we see a correlation. But claiming that ice cream causes
sunburn is silly. They’re related because both rise with heat,
not because one causes the other. CLAT loves to throw these
curveballs, where things seem connected, but you need to ask,
“Is it a real cause, or are they just hanging out together?” Now,
let’s spice it up with reverse causation. Think about umbrellas and
rain. If we observe people carrying umbrellas and assume they’re
causing the rain, that’s like saying the effect (rain) causes the
cause (umbrellas). But, come on, umbrellas can’t summon rain! In
the CLAT world, watch out for arguments where the effect seems
to cause the cause—it’s a logic no-no. You might also encounter
sneaky scenarios where a third amigo influences both events,
leading to a correlation. For instance, the more firefighters at a
scene, the more damage. It’s not that firefighters cause destruction,
but big fires attract more firefighters. So, be on guard for situations
where a hidden player affects both things you’re looking at.
CLAT wants you to be a detective, not a blind follower.
If you see two events together, don’t jump to conclusions. Ask
questions: Is there a direct cause, or are they just good pals
hanging out? Remember, correlation isn’t causation. People
getting sunburned and eating ice cream doesn’t mean the cone
causes the burn. Ice cream and sunburn may just love summer
equally. In a nutshell, correlation is like friends showing up at
your happy party, and causation is one friend throwing a confetti
bomb, making everyone cheer. Keep your logic radar sharp, and
don’t be fooled by things happening together. The key? Always
ask, “Is it a real cause, or are they just along for the ride?”
Illustration
1. Which of the following statements best represents a cause-
and-effect relationship? Choose the option where one
statement can be reasonably considered the cause, and the
other the effect.
(a) The city experienced a surge in tourism after implementing
a comprehensive marketing campaign.
(b) The student’s academic performance improved
significantly following the introduction of a new
teaching method.
(c) The company decided to invest in renewable energy
sources, leading to a reduction in its overall carbon
footprint.
Critical Reasoning PW
 (d) As temperatures rose, the demand for ice cream increased
in the local ice cream parlour.
Sol. Option (a) In this option, the implementation of a
comprehensive marketing campaign is the cause, leading
to the effect of a surge in tourism. The marketing campaign
is the action that precedes and influences the increase in
tourism.
Option (b) The introduction of a new teaching method is
the cause, and the improved academic performance is the
effect. The change in the teaching method precedes and
contributes to the subsequent improvement in students’
academic performance.
Option (c) Investing in renewable energy sources is the
cause, resulting in the effect of a reduction in the company’s
overall carbon footprint. The decision to invest precedes and
causes the observed decrease in carbon footprint.
Option (d) The rise in temperatures is the cause, leading to
the effect of increased demand for ice cream. The change in
temperature precedes and influences the subsequent increase
in ice cream consumption.
In summary, each option in this question illustrates a cause-
and-effect relationship, with one statement representing the
cause and the other the effect. Understanding the sequence
of events and the influencing factor helps identify the causal
relationship in each scenario.
2. Many scientists of the 1940s predicted that new, exceptionally
potent antibiotics would soon revolutionize the entire
medical field. Patients would be given large dosages of these
antibiotics, which would attack and kill harmful bacteria in
the body, making the patients stronger as a result. Which of
the following, if true, best describes a reasoning error in the
scientists’ prediction?
(a) To achieve the proper dosage requirements, several
rounds of antibiotics would likely be necessary.
(b) In the 1940s, antibiotics had only recently been
discovered.
(c) Some patients respond more quickly than others to strong
antibiotics.
(d) Strong antibiotics act on all bacteria in the body in the
same manner, including beneficial bacteria critical to
human health.
Sol. Option (a) This statement addresses the administration of
antibiotics but doesn’t directly challenge the scientists’
prediction. It doesn’t pinpoint a reasoning error in the
prediction; instead, it discusses the practicality of achieving
the proper dosage.
Option (b) This statement provides historical context
but doesn’t inherently point out a reasoning error in the
scientists’ prediction. It introduces a fact about the timeline
of antibiotic discovery but doesn’t directly address the
scientists’ expectations.
Option (c) While this statement introduces variability
in patient responses, it doesn’t specifically highlight a
reasoning error in the scientists’ prediction. It acknowledges
Cause and Effect Reasoning
individual differences in responsiveness but doesn’t directly
challenge the predicted overall impact of antibiotics.
Option (d) This statement directly addresses a reasoning
error in the scientists’ prediction. It points out that strong
antibiotics may not distinguish between harmful and
beneficial bacteria, posing a potential threat to the patient’s
health. This aligns with the prediction error of assuming
only harmful bacteria would be targeted.
Option (d) directly identifies a flaw in the scientists’
prediction by highlighting that strong antibiotics may
affect both harmful and beneficial bacteria, contrary to
the assumption that patients would only benefit from the
destruction of harmful bacteria. In summary, option (d) is
the correct answer as it specifically addresses the reasoning
error in the scientists’ prediction, while the other options
either provide additional context or discuss factors that are
not central to the prediction flaw.
Application Drill
Read the following arguments and solve the questions that follow.
Refer to the explanations for any clarification.
Argument 1: Alpha Cola, the best-selling soft drink nationally
among soda drinkers aged 18 to 25, recently completed an
expensive and successful ad campaign. The makers of Epsilon
Cola, a less popular soft drink that has been on the market for
many years, claim that without the recent ad campaign, Alpha
Cola would be no more popular than Epsilon.
3. Which of the following, if true, would cast the most serious
doubt on the assertion of the makers of Epsilon Cola?
(a) Alpha Cola’s recent ad campaign was intended in part
to increase sales of the soft drink to soda drinkers aged
18 to 25.
(b) Beverage buying decisions can be significantly
influenced by effective ad campaigns.
(c) Alpha Cola’s recent advertising campaign was one of
the most expensive advertising campaigns in history.
(d) Before the recent campaign, Alpha Cola had never
advertised but had significantly outsold all other soft
drinks on the market for several years.
Sol. Option (a) This statement supports the idea that the recent
ad campaign of Alpha Cola targeted the same age group
as its primary consumer base. However, it doesn’t directly
challenge the assertion made by the makers of Epsilon
Cola. It is consistent with Alpha Cola’s efforts to maintain
or enhance its popularity among the specified age group.
Option (b) This statement provides a general observation
about the influence of ad campaigns on buying decisions.
While it establishes the effectiveness of ad campaigns in
influencing consumer choices, it doesn’t specifically address
whether Alpha Cola’s recent success is solely due to its ad
campaign.
Option (c) This statement emphasizes the cost of Alpha
Cola’s recent ad campaign but does not directly challenge
the assertion made by the makers of Epsilon Cola. The
expense of the campaign does not necessarily undermine
29
 the claim that Alpha Cola would be no more popular than
Epsilon without it.
Option (d) This statement introduces crucial information
about Alpha Cola’s performance before the recent ad
campaign. Specifically, it highlights that Alpha Cola had
never engaged in advertising before the recent campaign,
yet it had been highly successful and had outsold all other
soft drinks on the market for several years.
In essence, option (d) weakens the claim made by the makers
of Epsilon Cola by providing an alternative explanation for
Alpha Cola’s popularity, indicating that factors other than
the recent ad campaign contributed to its success.
Argument 2: Medical Student: Last week, a certain patient at this
hospital weighed 150 lbs. Since the same patient weighs 160 lbs.
today, and he appears to be much healthier than he was last week,
he would be well advised to gain another ten pounds during the
coming week.
4. Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument
above?
(a) The same scale was used to measure the patient’s weight
in both instances.
(b) The patient was notified by his physician of this week’s
weight gain.
(c) During the past week, the patient has eaten less food
than he would normally eat.
(d) When the patient was weighed last week, an illness had
caused the patient’s weight to drop ten pounds below its
normal level.
30
Sol. Option (a) This information doesn’t directly undermine the
argument. If the same scale is used consistently, it ensures
consistency in measurements. This option doesn’t challenge
the reasoning behind advising the patient to gain more
weight.
Option (b) This option doesn’t necessarily undermine the
argument. Whether or not the patient was informed about
the weight gain doesn’t address the reasoning behind the
advice to gain more weight.
Option (b) This option has the potential to weaken the
argument. If the patient has eaten less than usual and still
gained weight, it suggests that factors other than increased
food intake may be contributing to the weight gain,
undermining the student’s advice.
Option (d) This is the correct answer. It directly challenges
the student’s argument. If the patient’s weight last week
was influenced by an illness, the current weight gain may
be a rebound from the previous illness rather than a signal
of overall health improvement.
The medical student’s advice is based on the assumption
that the patient’s weight gain is a positive sign of improved
health. However, if the patient’s weight drop last week
was due to illness, gaining back that weight doesn’t
necessarily indicate a healthy state. It might be a recovery
from the illness rather than a need for additional weight
gain. In conclusion, option (d) undermines the argument
by suggesting an alternative explanation for the observed
weight change, indicating that the weight gain might not be
a straightforward indicator of improved health.
Critical Reasoning PW
 8 Resolving Paradox
In the realm of Critical Reasoning questions, resolving paradoxes
becomes a crucial skill, and understanding what a paradox is
can significantly enhance one’s ability to navigate complex
arguments. A paradox in this context refers to a situation where
two seemingly contradictory or conflicting pieces of information
coexist, creating a puzzle that demands resolution. The importance
of unravelling paradoxes lies in the fact that they expose logical
gaps or inconsistencies in an argument, inviting us to dig deeper
into the underlying premises and conclusions. Identifying and
resolving paradoxes is akin to untangling knots in the fabric
of reasoning, revealing insights that may not be immediately
apparent. To illustrate, consider a scenario where a company’s
profits are soaring, but customer satisfaction is purportedly
plummeting. This paradox prompts us to question the relationship
between financial success and customer contentment. Spotting
paradoxes involves keen observation and an ability to discern
discrepancies within the narrative.
TYPES OF PARADOXES
Paradoxes are intriguing phenomena that challenge our
understanding of logic and reasoning. They often involve situations
where seemingly contradictory or counterintuitive elements
coexist, creating a puzzle that requires careful examination to
resolve. Let’s delve into different types of paradoxes, exploring
their characteristics and providing examples to illustrate each
category.
1. Logical Paradoxes: Common in discussions about self-
reference and logical contradictions, they challenge the
coherence of certain statements. Logical paradoxes arise from
self-reference or logical contradictions within a statement.
One classic example is the famous “liar paradox”. Imagine
someone saying, “I always lie”. If the statement is true, then
the person is indeed lying, leading to a logical contradiction.
On the other hand, if the statement is false, then the person
does not always lie, again resulting in a contradiction.
2. Observational Paradoxes: Often encountered in
scientific contexts, where empirical evidence may defy
initial expectations, leading to apparent contradictions.
Observational paradoxes involve situations where empirical
evidence or observations defy our expectations. An example
is the “twin paradox” in the theory of relativity. According
to Einstein’s theory, if one twin travels at near-light speed
into space and returns, they would be younger than their
Earth-bound sibling due to time dilation. This outcome,
counterintuitive from a common-sense perspective, is
supported by experimental evidence.
in an Argument
3. Semantic Paradoxes: Arising from language and meaning,
these paradoxes delve into the complexities of self-referential
statements and linguistic structures. Semantic paradoxes
revolve around language and meaning. The “Epimenides
paradox” is an instance where a statement refers to itself.
Epimenides, a Cretan, stated that all Cretans are liars. If his
statement is true, it implies that he, being a Cretan, is also
a liar, leading to a paradox. This type of paradox highlights
the complexities embedded in self-referential statements.
4. Set-Theoretic Paradoxes: Within the realm of mathematics,
paradoxes related to set theory, like Russell’s paradox, have
played a crucial role in shaping mathematical foundations.
Set-theoretic paradoxes emerge within mathematical
frameworks. The “Russell’s paradox” is a well-known
example. Consider a set of all sets that do not contain
themselves. If such a set exists, it leads to a contradiction
when determining whether it contains itself or not. Russell’s
paradox played a crucial role in the development of set theory
in mathematics.
5. Time Travel Paradoxes: Explored in physics and philosophy,
these paradoxes arise when considering the potential logical
inconsistencies in time travel scenarios. Time travel
paradoxes involve situations where time travellers face
logical inconsistencies. The “grandfather paradox” is a classic
example. If someone travels back in time and prevents their
grandfather from meeting their grandmother, it raises the
question of the time traveller’s existence. Resolving this
paradox requires considering alternative timelines or parallel
universes.
6. Sorites Paradox: Examining the challenges in defining
boundaries and gradual changes, this paradox often emerges
in discussions about vague concepts. The sorites paradox,
also known as the paradox of the heap, challenges our
understanding of boundaries and gradual changes. If we start
with a heap of sand and gradually remove individual grains, at
what point does it cease to be a heap? The paradox highlights
the difficulty in defining precise boundaries in concepts like
“heap” or “bald”.
7. Ship of Theseus Paradox: A thought experiment exploring
identity and continuity, particularly relevant in philosophical
discussions about the persistence of identity through change.
The Ship of Theseus paradox explores identity and continuity.
If every part of a ship is replaced over time, is it still the
same ship? This thought experiment raises questions about
the essence of identity and how much change an object can
undergo while retaining its original identity.
 8. Zeno’s Paradoxes: Zeno’s paradoxes, originating in ancient
Greek philosophy, challenge our understanding of motion and
infinity. One of these paradoxes involves Achilles racing a
tortoise. According to Zeno, Achilles, despite being faster,
can never overtake the tortoise because he must first reach
the point where the tortoise started, then the halfway point,
and so on, leading to an infinite series of tasks.
9. Barber Paradox: An example of a logical paradox involving
self-reference, questioning the logical coherence of a specific
scenario. The barber paradox illustrates self-reference in a
logical context. Consider a town where the barber shaves
all those who do not shave themselves and only those.
The question arises: Who shaves the barber? If he shaves
himself, it contradicts the rule that he shaves only those who
do not shave themselves, and if he doesn’t shave himself, it
contradicts the rule that he shaves all those who do not shave
themselves.
10. Tristram Shandy Paradox: Emerging from literature, this
paradox explores the challenges of representing a complete
life narrative and the interplay between time and storytelling.
The Tristram Shandy paradox arises from the fictional work
“The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman” by
Laurence Sterne. In the book, Tristram attempts to chronicle
his life but becomes so absorbed in details that the narrative
never catches up with the present. This paradox questions
the feasibility of accurately representing one’s life through
a comprehensive narrative.
Question Stems of Paradox
Following is a non-exhaustive list of questions that will help you
to identify a question on a paradox:
“Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the
apparent paradox?”
“Which of the following, if true, does the most to explain the
result described above?”
“Which of the following, if true, best accounts for the seeming
discrepancy described above?”
“Which of the following hypotheses best explains the contrast
described above?”
“Which of the following statements, if accurate, helps make
sense of the apparent contradiction outlined in the argument?”
“Which of the following, if true, harmonizes the conflicting
information presented?”
“Which of the following, if true, provides the most reasonable
explanation for the observed inconsistency?”
“Which of the following, if true, resolves the puzzle raised by
the coexistence of these seemingly contradictory facts?”
Steps to Solve a Paradox Question
Following is the suggestive way to resolve a paradox in an
argument:
32
Resolving paradox questions in Critical Reasoning on the CLAT
involves navigating through seemingly contradictory information
and finding a logical explanation to reconcile the apparent conflict.
Let’s break down the process into simple steps:
 Step 1: Understand the Paradox: The first and crucial step
is to fully comprehend the paradox presented in the argument.
Identify the contrasting elements or pieces of information
that seem to be at odds with each other. This could involve
unexpected outcomes, seemingly contradictory facts, or
situations that defy common expectations.
 Step 2: Identify the Core Elements: Pinpoint the
central elements of the paradox. What are the key pieces
of information or conditions that create the apparent
contradiction? Clearly understanding the core of the paradox
will guide your search for a resolution.
 Step 3: Explore Answer Choices: Carefully read through
the answer choices. Keep in mind that the correct answer will
provide new information or considerations that, when taken
into account, help reconcile the conflicting elements. As you
evaluate each choice, ask yourself how it impacts the paradox
and whether it offers a plausible explanation.
 Step 4: Consider Both Sides: Remember that a good
resolution should address both sides of the paradox. It should
not dismiss or ignore any of the conflicting information
but rather provide a coherent connection between them.
Be cautious of choices that seem to favour one side while
neglecting the other.
 Step 5: Look for New Information: The correct answer is
likely to introduce new information that was not explicitly
mentioned in the original argument. This new information
acts as the missing link that ties together the seemingly
contradictory elements. Be attentive to details and consider
how each choice adds to your understanding of the situation.
 Step 6: Eliminate Irrelevant Choices: Discard answer
choices that do not contribute to resolving the paradox or,
worse, exacerbate the contradiction. If an option introduces
irrelevant information or fails to address the core elements
of the paradox, it is likely incorrect.
 Step 7: Anticipate the Outcome: Before selecting your
final answer, think about how the introduced information or
explanation will impact the overall scenario. Visualize how
the resolution would alter the initial paradox and lead to a
more coherent understanding.
 Step 8: Verify Against the Paradox: Once you have a
potential answer, double-check that it indeed addresses the
paradox. Ensure that the new information complements both
sides of the conflict, creating a more cohesive and logical
framework.
 Step 9: Prioritize Simplicity: Choose the most straightforward
resolution. While it’s tempting to overcomplicate the solution,
the correct answer often provides a clear and concise
explanation without unnecessary complexities.
Critical Reasoning PW
Common Pitfalls and Traps in Paradox Questions
Paradox questions can be tricky, like solving a puzzle where
things seem a bit mixed up. But don’t worry, we’ll explore some
common traps or pitfalls you might encounter when dealing with
paradoxes. Let’s dive in and make sense of these challenges in
simple terms:
1. Overlooking Assumptions: Sometimes, we make
assumptions without even realizing it. In paradox questions,
there might be hidden assumptions that, if overlooked, can
lead to confusion. Always be on the lookout for these sneaky
assumptions that could be causing the apparent contradiction.
2. Jumping to Conclusions: It’s like trying to finish a story
without reading all the chapters. If you rush to a conclusion
too quickly, you might miss crucial details. Take your time
to understand the entire scenario before deciding what makes
sense and what doesn’t.
3. Ignoring Context: Imagine trying to understand a joke
without knowing the context—it might not make much sense.
Similarly, in paradox questions, the context is vital. Ignoring
or misunderstanding the context can lead you astray. Pay
attention to the whole story, not just bits and pieces.
4. Getting Distracted: Picture trying to solve a puzzle with
distractions all around. In paradox questions, there might
be tempting but irrelevant information that can lead you off
course. Stay focused on what truly matters to unravel the
paradox.
5. Assuming Extreme Cases: Sometimes, we think in
extremes, like imagining the fastest car or the tallest building.
In paradox questions, assuming extreme cases without
considering the middle ground can trip you up. Look for a
balanced understanding rather than jumping to extremes.
6. Not Considering Alternatives: It’s like having only one
flavour of ice cream when there are so many others to try. If
you stick to a single idea without exploring alternatives, you
might miss the solution to the paradox. Keep an open mind
and consider various possibilities.
7. Forgetting Nuances: Details matter, just like the ingredients
in a recipe. Forgetting or overlooking small details in a
paradox can lead to confusion. Pay attention to nuances,
as they often hold the key to resolving the apparent
contradiction.
8. Misinterpreting Language: Language can be like a puzzle
itself, with words having different meanings. Misinterpreting
the language used in a paradox can throw you off track. Take
time to understand the meaning of words and phrases to avoid
falling into this trap.
9. Assuming Personal Beliefs: Imagine trying to solve a
mystery while sticking to your ideas. If you let personal
beliefs cloud your judgment, it might be challenging to see
the paradox objectively. Stay open-minded and approach the
question without letting your personal opinions take over.
10. Overcomplicating Solutions: Sometimes, simplicity
is the key. Overcomplicating the solution to a paradox
Resolving Paradox in an Argument
by introducing unnecessary complexities can make the
puzzle harder than it needs to be. Look for straightforward
explanations before diving into intricate possibilities.
In summary, approaching paradox questions requires a
careful and patient mindset. Keep an eye out for assumptions,
consider the context, and don’t be swayed by distractions. Stay
open-minded, explore alternatives, and pay attention to details.
By avoiding these common pitfalls, you’ll be better equipped to
unravel the mysteries hidden within paradoxes.
Illustration
1. Paradox: In a small town, the average income of residents
is significantly lower than the national average. However,
the residents report higher levels of satisfaction with their
financial well-being compared to the national average. How
can a town with lower incomes boast higher satisfaction?
(a) The small town has a lower cost of living than the
national average.
(b) Residents in the town receive financial assistance
programs.
(c) T h e n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e i n c l u d e s h i g h - i n c o m e
neighbourhoods that skew the overall figure.
(d) The residents in the town prioritize non-material aspects
of life over income.
Sol. Analysis: This paradox presents a contradiction between
the reported satisfaction levels and the average income.
Residents seem content despite earning less on average.
To resolve this paradox, we need to find information
that explains why lower-income residents might still feel
financially satisfied.
Option (a): This provides a potential explanation. If the cost
of living is lower, residents can maintain satisfaction despite
lower incomes. Keep it for now.
Option (b): Financial assistance could contribute to
satisfaction but doesn’t directly address the paradox. Set
aside.
Option (c): Explains why the national average is high but
doesn’t clarify the town’s satisfaction paradox. Eliminate.
Option (d): Offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that
satisfaction is not solely tied to income. Keep it for now.
Now, compare the remaining options:
Option (a): The lower cost of living is a plausible explanation
for residents’ satisfaction.
Option (d) Prioritizing non-material aspects aligns with the
paradox but doesn’t directly address the lower income.
Option (a) provides a more direct and straightforward
resolution to the paradox by explaining how a lower cost of
living contributes to residents’ higher satisfaction. Therefore,
(a) is the most suitable answer. This example demonstrates
the process of identifying the central elements of a paradox,
evaluating potential resolutions, and selecting the answer
that offers the most effective explanation.
33
Application Drill
Read the following question and try to solve it on your own. In
case of confusion, refer to the explanations.
Passage 1
Omnifilm, a large film production studio, will release its next
major movie, FastCar, six months from now. Although OmniFilm
generally begins advertising six months before the release of a
major film, the studio plans to initiate the FastCar ad campaign
three months from now.
2. Which of the following, if true, best explains OmniFilm’s
decision to wait three months before beginning the ad
campaign?
(a) Many studies show that the benefits of advertising a
film are maximized when the ad campaign is initiated
no more than six months before a film’s release.
(b) Initiating the ad campaign for FastCar in six months
would unquestionably be less effective than initiating
the campaign in three months.
(c) Commencing the ad campaign for FastCar would attract
public attention away from another OmniFilm movie
currently showing in theatres.
(d) Early reviews predict that FastCar will be one of the
highest-grossing films in OmniFilm’s history
Sol. Option (a): The issue in the stimulus does not concern
advertising initiated more than six months before a film’s
release. The paradox is about why FastCar is being
advertised only three months before release, as opposed to
the standard six months.
Option (b): This answer choice could be tempting for test
takers who do not read closely. Remember, the stimulus
states that the ad campaign for FastCar will be released in
six months, but advertising will not begin for another three
months (only three months before the film’s release). This
answer choice states that an ad campaign that begins in three
months, as FastCar’s will, will be more effective than one
that begins in six months (which is when the film opens).
However, the oddity of this stimulus is not about what would
happen if the ads started in six months; the paradox concerns
why the ad campaign doesn’t begin now, six months before
the film’s release. So this answer choice has nothing to do
with the facts in the stimulus.
Option (c): This is the correct answer. This answer tells us
that if the ad campaign were to begin now, six months before
the film’s release, it would distract people from another one
of the studio’s movies that is currently showing. Since the
studio doesn’t want to attract attention away from its current
movie, we now have a reason for the apparent delay in the
advertising campaign for FastCar.
Option (d): This answer seems to contribute even further
to the paradox in the stimulus. If FastCar is expected to
be hugely successful, then the studio should be even more
willing to begin advertising it as soon as possible. So the
three-month delay becomes even more counterintuitive.
Thus Option (c) is the correct answer.
34
Passage 2
In a secluded village, residents consume a local fruit known for its
exceptional health benefits. Surprisingly, the village has a higher-
than-average rate of health issues compared to neighbouring
communities. Local health experts claim that the very fruit
celebrated for its health advantages might be contributing to the
health problems in this village.
3. Which of the following, if true, adds the most complexity
to this apparent paradox?
(a) The village has a unique genetic makeup that reacts
differently to the nutrients in the fruit compared to other
populations.
(b) The village has a thriving fitness culture, with residents
engaging in regular exercise routines.
(c) Studies show that the health issues in the village are not
directly linked to the consumption of the local fruit.
(d) The neighbouring communities have access to
advanced medical facilities, providing them with better
healthcare.
Sol. Option (a) Unique Genetic Makeup: If the village has a
genetic makeup that responds differently to the fruit, it
introduces a genetic factor into the paradox. This could imply
that the fruit’s impact varies based on individual genetics,
adding complexity to the health equation.
Option (b) Thriving Fitness Culture: If the village maintains
a strong fitness culture, it challenges the notion that health
issues are solely due to the fruit. This option suggests
that other lifestyle factors, like exercise habits, might
be influencing health outcomes, creating a multifaceted
scenario.
Option (c) Studies Disassociating Health Issues: This
option directly challenges the assumption that the fruit is
linked to health problems. If studies demonstrate that health
issues aren’t connected to fruit consumption, it contradicts
the initial premise and adds a layer of uncertainty to the
paradox.
Option (d) Access to Advanced Medical Facilities: The
neighbouring communities having better healthcare facilities
introduces an external factor. If improved healthcare is
influencing health outcomes, it questions whether the fruit
is the primary culprit or if healthcare disparities play a role
in the paradox.
The most appropriate answer is (c) Studies show that
the health issues in the village are not directly linked to
the consumption of the local fruit. This option directly
challenges the assumption that the local fruit is causing
health problems in the village. If studies demonstrate that
health issues aren’t connected to fruit consumption, it
contradicts the initial premise and adds a layer of uncertainty
to the paradox. This information implies that there might be
other factors contributing to the health problems, making
the relationship between the fruit and health issues less
straightforward.
Critical Reasoning PW
 9 Method and Flaw
Method of Reasoning questions prompt you to identify the approach
the author takes in presenting an argument. These questions,
belonging to the First Family of Questions, differ from concrete
Must Be True questions as they focus on the logical structure rather
than specific details. When tackling Method of Reasoning questions,
you must rely solely on the information provided in the stimulus
to determine the correct answer. Any answer choice introducing
elements or situations not found in the stimulus is incorrect. The
stimulus in a Method of Reasoning question can showcase either
sound or flawed reasoning. The questions vary in format, with the
stem directing your attention to the method, technique, strategy,
or process employed by the author in constructing the argument.
The aim is to grasp the overarching logical organization of the
argument rather than the specific content.
In essence, these questions challenge you to understand how
the author builds and presents their case. This involves recognizing
patterns, identifying reasoning structures, and discerning the
author’s approach to constructing a persuasive argument. Your
task is to delve into the abstract nature of the argument, using your
understanding of logic and reasoning to determine the most fitting
answer choice. To excel in the Method of Reasoning questions,
it’s crucial to navigate the abstract terrain, distinguishing between
well-founded and flawed reasoning. Whether the author employs
a deductive approach, draws valid inferences, or commits logical
fallacies, your focus remains on the logical architecture of the
argument. Remember, the stimulus is your sole guide, and any
external knowledge or assumptions should be set aside.
THE QUESTION STEMS FROM THE METHOD
OF REASONING
The following table contains a non-exhaustive list of question
stems that will help you to identify the method of reasoning
questions:
“The method of the argument is to”
“The argument proceeds by”
“The argument derives its conclusion by”
“Which of the following describes the technique of reasoning
used above?”
“Which of the following is an argumentative strategy employed
in the argument?”
“The argument employs which one of the following reasoning
techniques?”
in the Reasoning
THE FLAW IN THE REASONING
Flaws in the Reasoning questions closely resemble the Method of
Reasoning questions, but they come with a key distinction – the
question stem explicitly states that there is a flaw in the reasoning
within the stimulus. This crucial difference simplifies your task
because you don’t need to independently assess the validity of
the stimulus; the question stem does this for you. This advantage
allows you to pinpoint the flaw in the argument before delving
into the answer choices. Even if you initially overlooked the flaw,
the question stem guides you to reassess the argument and spot
the error. When the question stem signals the presence of a flaw, it
might use phrases like “the reasoning is flawed” or “the argument
is vulnerable”, making it clear that a logical misstep exists. This
explicit identification of a flaw acts as a beacon, directing your
attention to areas of weakness within the argument. It serves as
a valuable tool, ensuring that you approach the answer choices
with a keen awareness of the underlying error in the reasoning
presented. In essence, Flaws in the Reasoning questions provide
you with a roadmap to navigate the argument’s pitfalls. You’re
prompted to recognize and understand the flaw before evaluating
potential answer choices. This strategic guidance enhances your
ability to dissect the reasoning structure and identify common
errors, such as logical fallacies or unsupported assumptions.
The process involves leveraging the information provided in the
question stem to your advantage. By acknowledging the existence
of a flaw, you gain insights into the argument’s vulnerabilities.
This recognition sets the stage for a more targeted and effective
evaluation of the answer choices, allowing you to select the option
that most accurately addresses the identified flaw.
Questions Stem from Flaws in the Reasoning
Following are some examples of question stems used for asking
questions on the central flaw in the passage.
“Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the
argument’s reasoning?”
“The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism
because the argument”
“The reasoning above is flawed because it fails to recognize
that”
“A questionable aspect of the reasoning above is that it”
Prephrasing in Method and Flaw Questions
The method of Reasoning and Flaw in the Reasoning questions
present a unique challenge as they require abstract thinking,
emphasizing the form of the argument rather than its concrete
details. Navigating these questions becomes intricate because the
answer choices employ abstract terms to describe the argument,
and test makers adeptly manipulate these terms to create
unexpected and deceptive options. Students often encounter
difficulty when none of the answers aligns precisely with their
preconceived notions, mainly because the test makers can
encapsulate entire sections of the stimulus in just a word or two.
Success in these questions hinges on a robust understanding of the
argument’s mechanics and the ability to discern references within
the answer choices.
Prephrasing in Method and Flaw questions involves
grasping the details of the stimulus while also understanding
its underlying structure. Although you may comprehend the
specifics, the challenge arises when trying to articulate the logical
organization of the argument. Consequently, each answer may
initially seem implausible, as they primarily relate to the abstract
structure of the argument. To tackle this, it’s crucial to contemplate
the argument’s structure before delving into the answer choices.
While your exact prephrase may not appear among the options
due to the varied ways an argument can be described, a general,
abstract prephrase provides a foundation. A rigorous examination
of each answer choice is then necessary to identify if the test
makers have paraphrased your prephrase.
Abstract thinking, inherent in these questions, demands more
cognitive effort than concrete thinking, making them challenging
for most students. The deceptive nature of abstract questions
often leads students astray as they grapple with the description
provided by the test makers. Overcoming this challenge requires a
meticulous comparison of the answer choice descriptions with the
stimulus. By aligning the abstract prephrase with the nuances of
the answer choices, students can unveil the correct response. This
approach not only reinforces the importance of understanding
the argument’s form but also highlights the necessity of abstract
thinking skills in deciphering these intricate Methods and Flaw
questions.
The Fact Test in Method and Flaw Questions
In Method of Reasoning and Flaw in the Reasoning questions, a
useful strategy akin to the Fact Test from Must Be True questions
can be applied to eliminate incorrect answers. The Fact Test in
these questions operates on a simple principle:
If an answer choice describes an event or element that did
not occur in the stimulus, then that answer is incorrect.
Test makers often craft tempting but incorrect answer choices
containing elements not present in the stimulus. To navigate this,
it’s crucial to select the answer that accurately describes what
unfolded in the stimulus. For instance, if an answer states, “The
argument accepts a claim based on public opinion of the claim”,
every component of the answer must find its counterpart in the
stimulus. Identifying where the author “accepts a claim” and
doing so “based on public opinion of the claim” must both be
verifiable in the stimulus. Any part of an answer that cannot be
identified in the stimulus renders that answer incorrect.
36
Caution is warranted for partially true answers—those
that capture an aspect of what occurred in the argument but also
introduce additional elements that did not transpire. Consider an
answer choice asserting, “The author disagrees with the analogy
used by the critic”. To validate this answer, one must locate both
the “disagreement” and the “analogy” in the stimulus. If only
one or neither can be identified, the answer is incorrect. Even if
the disagreement is evident, the presence of the analogy in the
stimulus is essential for the answer to be considered correct. This
method ensures a rigorous evaluation of each answer choice,
promoting accuracy in identifying the alignment between the
answer and the actual occurrences in the stimulus.
Incorrect Answers in Method and Flaw Questions
In this section, we’ll delve into specific types of answers related
to Method and Flaw questions, expanding our understanding of
these concepts and introducing an additional wrong answer type:
1. “New” Element Answers: Correct answers for the Method
of Reasoning must align with elements in the stimulus. Any
answer introducing something not in the stimulus is incorrect.
Variations of this theme manifest in the wrong answer choices
discussed below.
2. Half Right, Half Wrong Answers: CLAT often crafts
answers that start by describing a stimulus occurrence but
end by introducing elements not in the stimulus. The rule here
is straightforward: if an answer is partly wrong, it’s entirely
wrong.
3. Exaggerated Answers: This type stretches a stimulus
situation to an extreme statement unsupported by the
stimulus. Be cautious; though extreme language might be
present, it doesn’t inherently make the answer incorrect.
4. The Opposite Answer: As the name implies, this answer
provides the exact opposite of correctness. It’s a clear
departure from what occurred in the stimulus.
5. The Reverse Answer: Appealing as it contains familiar
stimulus elements, the Reverse Answer flips them in the
response. Since the reversed statement doesn’t align with
the stimulus, it’s deemed incorrect.
Understanding incorrect answer choices aids future
preparation. Familiarity with CLAT’s recurrent reasoning methods
and the language employed to describe them enhances readiness
for encountering similar questions. Studying all Methods of
Reasoning and Flaws in the Reasoning answers, both correct
and incorrect, proves valuable. Maintaining a list of different
argument types encountered is a practical strategy. Recognizing
that a wrong answer to one question could be correct for another
builds a robust foundation. During review, contemplating the type
of argument needed for each incorrect choice sharpens the ability
to discern diverse argument structures.
The Value of Knowing Common Errors of Reasoning
In logic, there are more ways for arguments to go wrong than to go
right. The creators of the CLAT, being human, tend to repeat certain
mistakes in the arguments they present. Understanding these common
errors gives you a clear advantage. Think of it like examining a tree
in a forest: Must Be True questions focus on one tree, analyzing its
Critical Reasoning PW
details, while Method or Flaw questions take a step back, looking at
the whole forest, and understanding the general structure.
This knowledge serves you in two crucial ways:
1. Identifying Errors in the Stimulus: Learning the common
mistakes made by authors enables you to quickly spot errors
in the argument. This accelerates your progress through
answer choices, providing confidence and efficiency. Without
this insight, others might struggle, working more slowly and
less confidently.
2. Recognizing Common Error Types in Answer Choices: In
Flaws in the Reasoning questions, certain answer types are
frequently repeated by the test makers. While these choices
could sometimes be correct based on the reasoning used in
the stimulus, more often, they are standard wrong answers.
Being familiar with these choices grants you an advantage,
helping you swiftly assess their correctness. For instance,
attacking the source of an argument instead of the argument
itself is a recurring theme. Knowing this allows you to make
quick determinations during the exam.
Understanding these aspects clarifies why effective test
preparation is beneficial. The more you comprehend the exam
beforehand, the less time you waste pondering these issues during
the actual test. Knowing the most common flawed reasoning
patterns on the CLAT is immensely advantageous.
Common Errors of Reasoning Explained
Let’s break down the errors in reasoning related to evidence in a
more straightforward manner.
Errors in the use of Evidence:
1. General Lack of Relevant Evidence for the Conclusion
Example: “Some critics claim that scientific progress has
increased the polarization of society and alienated large
segments of the population. But these critics are wrong
because even a cursory glance at the past shows that society
is always somewhat polarized and some groups are inevitably
alienated”.
In this case, the author provides irrelevant evidence to counter
the claim about scientific progress. They argue that society
has always been polarized, which doesn’t directly address
the impact of scientific progress on polarization.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“The author cites irrelevant data”.
“It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches”.
2. Internal Contradiction
Example: “Everyone should join our country club. After
all, it’s an exclusive group that links many of the influential
members of the community”.
The contradiction arises when the author urges everyone to
join an exclusive group. “Exclusive” implies some level of
exclusion, contradicting the idea that everyone should be
part of it.
Method and Flaw in the Reasoning
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“Bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with
each other”.
“Introduces information that contradicts the conclusion”.
3. Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization
Example: “Two of my friends were shortchanged at that
store. Therefore, everyone gets shortchanged at that store”.
This error involves drawing a broad conclusion from a small
number of instances. Just because two friends had a bad
experience doesn’t mean everyone will.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“Supports a general claim based on a single example”.
“The argument draws a broad conclusion from a small sample
of instances”.
Errors in Assessing the Force of Evidence
1. Lack of evidence for a position is taken to prove that position
is false
Example: “The White House has failed to offer any evidence
that they have reached a trade agreement with China.
Therefore, no such agreement has been reached”.
Just because there’s no evidence presented doesn’t mean the
opposite is true. A lack of confirmation doesn’t automatically
disprove the claim.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“Treats failure to prove a claim as constituting a denial of
that claim”.
“Taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence
undermining the claim”.
2. Lack of evidence against a position is taken to prove that
position is true
Example: “There has been no evidence given against the
existence of God, so God must exist”.
The absence of evidence against a position doesn’t prove that
the position is true. Lack of disproof doesn’t equal proof.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“Treating the failure to prove a claim to be false as if it is a
demonstration of the truth of that claim”.
3. Some evidence against a position is taken to prove that the
position is false
Example: “Some historians claim that a lengthy drought
preceded the fall of the Aztec empire. But we know from
Aztec writings that in at least one year during the supposed
drought, there was minor flooding. Thus, the claim that there
was a lengthy drought before the fall of the Aztec empire is
false”.
Introducing evidence against a position weakens it but doesn’t
necessarily disprove it. A single instance of flooding doesn’t
negate the possibility of an overall drought.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“It confuses weakening an argument in support of a given
conclusion with proving the conclusion itself to be false”.
37
 4. Some evidence for a position is taken to prove that position
is true.
Example: “We know that the defendant was in the vicinity
of the robbery when the robbery occurred. Therefore, the
defendant is guilty of the robbery”.
Having evidence that supports a position doesn’t make it
undeniably true. Other factors must be considered.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“The argument takes facts showing that its conclusion could
be true as proof that the conclusion is indeed true”.
In essence, these errors highlight how evidence can be
misused or misunderstood, leading to flawed reasoning in
arguments.
SOURCE ARGUMENT
Let us try to simplify the concept of ad hominem fallacy: Also
known as an ad hominem, this type of flawed argument attacks
the person (or source) making a claim rather than addressing
the actual argument they present. It’s important to note that on
the CLAT, the focus is solely on the structure of arguments,
and attacking a person’s character or motives is not considered
a valid approach. The correct way to critique an argument is by
challenging the reasoning and evidence presented. Example:
“The anti-smoking views expressed by Senator Smith should be
ignored. After all, Smith himself is a smoker!” In this example,
instead of addressing the arguments against smoking, the focus
is on attacking Senator Smith personally because of his smoking
habit. This is an ad hominem fallacy.
Forms of Source Arguments
1. Focusing on the Motives of the Source: This occurs when the
critique is directed at the intentions or motives of the person
making the argument rather than the argument itself. For
example, questioning someone’s motivation for promoting a
certain idea without addressing the merits of the idea.
2. Focusing on the Actions of the Source: As seen in the
provided example, this form involves attacking the person’s
actions or behaviours instead of engaging with the substance
of their argument. It’s a diversion from the core issues being
discussed.
In Real-World Scenarios: Source arguments, similar
to ad hominem attacks, are commonly used in various
settings, especially by children and politicians. In everyday
conversations, people might resort to criticizing the person
rather than engaging with the actual content of the argument.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“It is directed against the proponent of a claim rather than
against the claim itself”.
“The attack is directed against the person making the
argument rather than directing it against the argument itself”.
CIRCULAR REASONING
Circular reasoning occurs when the author assumes something to
be true, which is supposed to be proven, creating a loop where the
38
premise and conclusion essentially say the same thing. In simpler
terms, it’s like saying, “This is the best because it is better than
all the others”. The issue here is that the statement supporting the
conclusion is, in essence, the conclusion itself. Example: “I must
be telling the truth because I’m not lying”. In this example, the
statement “I’m not lying” is used to support the claim of telling
the truth, but it doesn’t provide any independent evidence or
reasoning. The argument goes in a circle, as the claim of not lying
is dependent on the assumption that the person is telling the truth.
Common Phrases in Answer Choices:
“It assumes what it seeks to establish”.
“Presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove”.
“The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate”.
Circular reasoning is like a loop where the author uses a
statement to prove something, and that something is then used to
prove the initial statement. It’s a bit like saying, “I’m right because
I’m right”. The argument lacks independent support or evidence,
relying on a cycle that doesn’t lead to any real conclusion. Think
of circular reasoning like a person saying, “I’m the best chef
because my cooking is better than anyone else’s”. When asked
why their cooking is better, they might simply respond, “Because
I’m the best chef”. It’s a loop without any solid basis or external
support.
Errors of Conditional Reasoning
Mistaken Negation and Mistaken Reversal are errors related
to conditional reasoning. It involves confusing the necessary
condition with the sufficient condition. Remember, the necessary
condition is something essential for an outcome, while the
sufficient condition is enough to guarantee that outcome.
1. Mistaken Negation: Mistaking the absence of an occurrence
as evidence that a necessary condition for that occurrence
also did not take place. Example: Assuming that if something
necessary for a goal didn’t happen, it’s evidence that the goal
itself wasn’t achieved.
2. Mistaken Reversal: Mistaking something sufficient to
achieve an outcome for being required to achieve it. Example:
Acting as if something sufficient to create a good leader is
also necessary for a good leader.
Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions:
Confusing a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition:
Concluding that something necessary for a goal is sufficient for its
achievement. Example: Treating something necessary for a good
leader as if it’s sufficient to create a good leader.
Confusing a Sufficient Condition for a Necessary Condition:
Confusing something sufficient to achieve an outcome with being
required for that outcome. Example: Confusing a quality sufficient
for a good leader with something required to create a good leader.
Recognizing the Key Terms: When analyzing answer
choices related to conditional reasoning, terms like “sufficient”,
“necessary”, “assured” or “required” are crucial. Identifying
these terms helps quickly spot the error in conditional reasoning
in CLAT questions.
Critical Reasoning PW
 Thus, Mistaken Negation and Mistaken Reversal occur when
there’s confusion between what’s necessary and what’s sufficient
for a particular outcome. It’s like mixing up what is crucial and
what is enough to make something happen. Recognizing these
errors is essential for understanding and critiquing conditional
reasoning, and it’s beneficial to look out for specific terms in
answer choices that indicate these mistakes.
Mistaken Cause and Effect
Underneath each item are examples of how the error of reasoning
can be described in answer choices:
1. Assuming a causal relationship based on the sequence of
events: Making the mistake of thinking that just because one
thing happens after another, the first thing must be the cause
of the second. Example: Wrongly concluding that because
the rooster crows before sunrise, the crowing causes the sun
to rise.
2. Assuming a causal relationship when only a correlation
exists: Confusing the idea that two things happen together
with the belief that one thing causes the other. Example:
Wrongly thinking that ice cream sales cause an increase in
shark attacks simply because both happen more frequently
in the summer.
3. Failure to consider an alternate cause for the effect or
an alternate cause for both the cause and the effect:
Forgetting to think about other possible explanations for
why something happened. Example: Not considering that
an increase in sunglasses sales and ice cream consumption
during summer may be because of the hot weather, rather
than assuming one causes the other.
4. Failure to consider that the events may be reversed:
Mistaking the effect for the cause or vice versa.
Example: Incorrectly believing that a fever causes an
increase in body temperature, when, in fact, it’s the other
way around.
It’s important to note the frequent use of the words “cause” or
“effect” in these descriptions. This repetition occurs because
these terms are fundamental to expressing issues related to
causality. So, if you spot a causal reasoning scenario in a
CLAT question, a quick scan for the words “cause” or “effect”
in the answer choices might just lead you to the correct one.
Straw Man
This error, known as the “straw man” fallacy, crops up when an
author aims to dismantle an opponent’s position not by engaging
with their actual statements but by distorting and weakening
the argument. Imagine building a scarecrow, a “straw man”,
which is then conveniently knocked down. This tactic involves
misrepresenting the opponent’s stance, making it easier to attack.
Often, phrases like “what you’re saying is” or “if I understand
you correctly” precede the reconstructed and weakened argument.
Often this error is accompanied by the phrase “what you’re saying
is” or “if I understand you correctly”, which are used to preface
the refashioned and weakened argument.
Method and Flaw in the Reasoning
For example:
Politician A: “The platform proposed by my party calls for
a moderate increase in taxes on those individuals making over
$20,000 per year, and then taking that money and using it to
rebuild the educational system”.
Politician B: “But what you’re saying is that everyone should pay
higher taxes, and so your proposal is unfair”.
Here, Politician B doesn’t engage with the actual proposal
of Politician A. Instead, they distort the argument, claiming that
Politician A suggests everyone should pay higher taxes, which
is not the case. This misrepresentation weakens Politician A’s
position, creating a “straw man” that Politician B finds easier to
criticize.
In essence, the “straw man” fallacy is like misquoting
someone and then arguing against the misquote instead of
addressing their real statements. This misleading tactic can be
spotted by paying attention to how an argument is framed and
whether it accurately represents the opponent’s position or distorts
it for convenience.
Appeal Fallacies
1. Appeal to Authorit: This happens when someone tries to
convince you of something by using the opinion of an expert,
but the expert may not know enough about the topic. The
flaw in this form of reasoning is that the authority may not
have relevant knowledge or all the information regarding
a situation, or there may be a difference of opinion among
experts as to what is true in the case. Example: Imagine if
a famous brain doctor says toothpaste is the best. That’s
nice, but he’s not a tooth expert. Imagine your math teacher
telling you the best way to bake a cake. They might be great
at math, but are they a baking expert? This mistake is like
trusting an expert in one area to be an expert in another. If
a famous scientist talks about science, cool. But if they talk
about fashion, maybe not so much. So, if someone says,
“Trust me, I’m an expert”, check if it’s about what they’re
good at.
2. Appeal to Popular Opinion/Appeal to Number: This
is when people say something is true just because many
people believe it, but that doesn’t always make it right. An
appeal to popular opinion does not present a logical reason
for accepting a position, just an appeal based on numbers.
Example: If most friends say a movie is cool, it doesn’t mean
you’ll like it. Facts matter more than just what many people
think. Just because many people like a song doesn’t mean
it’s the best song. Numbers don’t always show what’s true.
This mistake is thinking something is true just because lots
of people think so. Imagine if everyone says pizza is gross,
but you love it. What’s true for you is what matters. So, when
lots of people agree, it’s nice, but facts are more important.
3. Appeal to Emotion: This occurs when someone tries to
persuade you by using strong feelings instead of good
reasons. Example: If you tell a police officer not to give you
a ticket because you’ve had a tough month, it’s playing on
emotions, not explaining why you shouldn’t get a ticket. If
39
 you ask for a toy with puppy eyes, you’re using feelings, not
reasons. That’s like this mistake-using emotions to convince
instead of good explanations. This error is when someone
wants you to agree because they make you feel sad, happy, or
scared. If you want a toy, it’s better to explain why you should
have it, not just look sad. So, when someone says, “Feel bad
for me, so do what I want”, be careful. Good reasons matter
more than just feelings.
Survey Errors
Imagine you want to know which ice cream flavor is the most
popular among your friends. So, you decide to ask only those
friends who attend the same sports club as you. But, whoops!
You forgot that your sports club friends are all big fans of mint
chocolate chip ice cream. If you conclude that mint chocolate chip
is the most popular flavour based on this group, you’ve just made
the first mistake in surveys.
1. Biased sample: It’s like asking only a specific group and
thinking they represent everyone. Example: Imagine you
want to know if students like a new cafeteria menu. If you
only ask students who love pizza and ignore others, you
won’t get a fair idea. Surveys can go wrong if you ask the
wrong people. In 1936, a magazine sent out voting ballots
mostly to rich folks with phones and cars. Surprise, surprise,
they predicted the rich Republican would win, but the actual
winner was the Democrat. Why? Because they asked the
wrong crowd and those who answered were the ones who
felt like it. Imagine if only the kids who love recess get to
vote on the school menu. The result might be all about pizza
and cookies, missing what others want.
2. Improperly Constructed Questions: If questions are
tricky or make you scratch your head, answers might not
make sense. Example: If a friend asks, “Don’t you think
everyone should agree to clean up after lunch?” You might
feel tricked because not everyone might agree. Surveys can
mess up if questions are a puzzle. If someone asks, “Should
the school close early?” but you think it’s already closing
late, the answer is confusing. Imagine a friend asking, “Do
you think none of us may want more homework?” That’s like
saying, “Do you think all of us want more homework?” It’s
confusing! If questions aren’t clear, answers won’t be either.
3. Inaccurate Responses: Sometimes, people don’t tell the
truth in surveys. Example: If a teacher asks, “Did everyone
finish their homework?” Some might say yes, even if they
didn’t. Surveys rely on people being honest. But, surprise,
they’re not always. Imagine a survey asking, “How many
times do you eat veggies each week?” Some might say every
day sounds good, but maybe it’s only on pizza day. It’s like
asking, “How much do you love school?” Some might say
a lot because they want to look good, even if they secretly
wish for more playtime.
ERRORS OF COMPOSITION AND DIVISION
Imagine you have a magical pen, and every time you use it, your
writing becomes fun and exciting. Now, let’s say you use that pen
only at parties. So, logically, every party you attend becomes fun
and exciting because of the pen. But, oops! Thinking that your
40
whole life outside parties is also fun and exciting just because of
the pen is a mistake.
Error of Composition
It’s like thinking something true for one piece is true for the whole.
Example: If one slice of pizza is tasty, thinking the whole pizza
is just as good. Imagine you say, “Every homework assignment I
finish is excellent. Therefore, my school year is excellent”. But,
wait! Just because each assignment is excellent doesn’t mean
your whole school year is the same. It’s like saying, “Every puzzle
piece is blue. Therefore, the whole puzzle is blue”. Nope, some
pieces might be red or green.
Error of Division
It’s like assuming everyone in a group is the same as the whole
group. Example: If your friend is great at soccer, thinking
everyone in their team is also great. Imagine you say, “The entire
school is fantastic. So, every student must be fantastic too”. But
hold on! Just because the whole school is fantastic doesn’t mean
every student is. It’s like saying, “This cake is sweet. Therefore,
every slice of the cake is sweet”. Well, maybe one slice has extra
sugar, and another has less.
In a nutshell, these errors are like thinking one puzzle piece
represents the whole picture or assuming a tasty slice means the
entire pizza is delicious.
UNCERTAIN USE OF A TERM OR CONCEPT
Imagine you’re talking about your favourite game, and you use the
word “play” to describe both enjoying the game and manipulating
pieces. Confusing, right? Similarly, in an argument, using a term
in different ways can be like saying “apple” to mean both a fruit
and a tech company. It’s a mix-up that confuses everyone.
Error of Ambiguous Term Usage
It’s like using one word to mean different things, making the
argument unclear. Example: If you say, “I love playing chess; it’s
a strategy game. Companies should also play fair”. Here, “play”
means different things. Imagine saying, “Building a strong team is
like building a sturdy house; both need a solid foundation”. Now,
if you suddenly say, “But in business, building relationships is the
foundation”, it’s confusing. Here, “building” shifts from a literal
sense (house) to a metaphorical one (business relationships).
In a nutshell, it’s like talking about a cool movie and
saying, “The plot was thrilling, and the land for sale nearby is
also thrilling”. Wait, what? Using “thrilling” for a story and land
doesn’t make sense. Similarly, in an argument, using a term in
different ways can leave everyone scratching their heads.
FALSE ANALOGY
Imagine comparing choosing a movie to choosing a career. It’s a
bit like saying, “Just as picking a comedy makes for a fun movie
night, the best way to find a job is to spin a wheel and see where it
lands”. Well, that comparison is a bit off, right? That’s what we call
a False Analogy. It’s like saying two things are similar when, in
reality, they’re quite different. Example: Saying, “Just like adding
sugar to tea sweetens it, adding salt to your coffee will make it
Critical Reasoning PW
tasty”. Um, no, that’s not how flavours work. Picture this: “Just as
a chef needs various ingredients to cook a gourmet dish, a writer
needs diverse words to craft a masterpiece”. Now, if you suddenly
say, “So, just mix random words for a great novel”, that’s a bit of
a stretch. Cooking and writing are different arts; the analogy fails.
It’s like comparing swimming in the ocean to navigating a board
game. Saying, “Just as a swimmer battles waves, strategizing in
Monopoly is intense”. Hold on, those situations are worlds apart!
Similarly, in an argument, comparing unrelated things is like
trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn’t work!
TIME SHIFT ERRORS
Imagine if someone said, “I’ve always had chocolate ice cream
on my birthday, so I’ll have it this year too”. That’s a bit like
assuming the future based on the past, and it’s called the “Fallacy
of False Analogy”. Assuming things will stay the same over time.
Example: Believing, “The weather has always been sunny on
picnics, so our picnic next year will be sunny too”. Let’s dive
into this. Imagine if your friend said, “I’ve never missed the bus
before, so I won’t miss it tomorrow”. Well, that’s not a guarantee.
It’s like saying, “I’ve always aced math quizzes, so I’ll ace this
one too”. Past success doesn’t guarantee future victories.
Illustration
1. Argument: The company has been profitable for the past
five years, and its stock value has consistently increased.
Therefore, it is evident that the company will continue to
experience financial success in the coming years. Identify
the flaw in the argument presented above.
(a) Circular Reasoning
(b) False Analogy
(c) Error of Composition
(d) Fallacy of False Cause
Sol. Option (a) Circular Reasoning (Incorrect): Circular
reasoning involves restating the argument differently
without providing additional support. In this argument,
the conclusion is essentially repeated, but the flaw lies in
assuming past profitability guarantees future success.
Option (b) False Analogy (Incorrect): A false analogy
involves comparing two unrelated things. This argument
doesn’t compare different situations; instead, it assumes a
consistent trend without considering external factors. It’s
not an issue of comparing unrelated items.
Option (c) Error of Composition (Correct): This error occurs
when a characteristic of a part is incorrectly attributed to
the whole. In this case, just because the company has been
profitable doesn’t mean every aspect (or future performance)
of the company will be equally successful.
Option (d) Fallacy of False Cause (Incorrect): The fallacy
of false cause involves assuming that because two events
are correlated, one causes the other. While the argument
suggests a correlation between past profitability and future
success, it doesn’t explicitly state that one causes the other.
Thus, The flaw in the given argument is an error of
composition. Just because the parts of the company
Method and Flaw in the Reasoning
(past financial performance) have a certain characteristic
(profitability), it doesn’t mean the entire company will
exhibit the same characteristic in the future.
2. Argument: Over the past decade, the crime rate in City X
has steadily decreased. Therefore, implementing a new set
of strict regulations on businesses will further contribute to
the reduction in criminal activities in the city. Identify the
flaws in the argument presented above.
(a) Ad Hominem
(b) Hasty Generalization
(c) Correlation/Causation Fallacy
(d) Straw Man Fallacy
Sol. Option (a) Ad Hominem (Incorrect): Ad Hominem attacks
the person making the argument rather than addressing the
argument itself. The argument here doesn’t involve personal
attacks but rather draws a conclusion based on a specific
claim.
Option (b) Hasty Generalization (Correct): Hasty
generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn from
insufficient evidence. In this argument, the reduction in
crime rate is attributed to a specific cause (strict regulations
on businesses) without considering other factors that may
have contributed to the decline.
Option (c) Correlation/Causation Fallacy (Incorrect):
While the argument does suggest a correlation between
implementing strict regulations and reduced crime, it doesn’t
explicitly claim that one causes the other. This flaw is not
as evident in the given argument.
Option (d) Straw Man Fallacy (Incorrect): A straw man
fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to
make it easier to attack. In this case, the argument doesn’t
create a distorted version of an opposing view but rather
relies on an unsupported assumption.
The primary flaw in the argument is a hasty generalization.
It assumes that implementing strict regulations on businesses
is the sole cause of the decrease in the crime rate without
considering other potential factors. Additionally, the
argument fails to provide sufficient evidence and overlooks
the complexity of crime rate reduction, making its conclusion
premature and unsupported.
Application Drill
Read the following argument and solve the question on the central
flaw. To verify the answer, refer to the explanation provided.
3. Argument: Proponents of the theory of social utilitarianism
hold that the value of human capital should bear an inherent
relation to its social utility. Although maximizing the value of
human capital is both morally defensible and economically
praiseworthy, the theory of social utilitarianism has severe
practical limitations. If the price of labour were to become
a measure of social utility and not of scarcity, the labour
market would suffer significant distortions that may well
reduce, and not increase, the current level of human capital.
The argument proceeds by
41
 (a) Questioning a proposed strategy by showing that, if
implemented, such a strategy could compromise the
very objectives it is trying to achieve.
(b) Criticizing a course of action by showing that, even if
morally defensible, the result does not always justify the
means necessary to achieve it.
(c) Criticizing a strategy by suggesting that there is an
alternative way of achieving its proposed advantages
without risking several serious disadvantages.
(d) Conceding that a social policy may have certain ethical
advantages that are ultimately outweighed by the
impossibility of putting such a policy into effect.
Sol. Option (a) This option accurately reflects the structure of the
argument. The passage questions the strategy of tying the
value of human capital to its social utility by demonstrating
that if this strategy is implemented, it could lead to
significant distortions in the labour market, compromising
the objectives of maximizing the value of human capital.
Option (b) While the argument mentions that maximizing
the value of human capital is morally defensible, the primary
criticism is about the potential negative consequences
and distortions in the labour market, not about the means
necessary to achieve the result.
Option (c) The argument does not propose an alternative
strategy. Instead, it focuses on the drawbacks and practical
limitations of the theory of social utilitarianism, without
suggesting an alternative approach.
Option (d) The argument does not concede ethical
advantages; rather, it emphasizes the severe practical
limitations of the theory of social utilitarianism. The focus
is on the potential negative consequences rather than the
ethical advantages being outweighed by implementation
difficulties.
In summary, Option (a) accurately captures the essence of
the argument, making it the correct answer. The argument
questions the proposed strategy and demonstrates that its
implementation could compromise its objectives.
4. Argument: In a recent study, researchers concluded that
individuals who engage in regular physical exercise are
more likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction
42
than those who lead sedentary lifestyles. The study suggests
a strong correlation between physical activity and job
satisfaction, asserting that employers should encourage and
facilitate exercise programs for their employees. However,
critics argue that the study fails to establish a clear cause-
and-effect relationship and overlooks other factors that
contribute to job satisfaction, such as work environment and
job responsibilities. Identify the central flaw in the argument
presented.
(a) The argument relies on circular reasoning by assuming
that individuals who engage in regular physical exercise
are inherently more satisfied with their jobs, without
providing evidence for the causal relationship between
exercise and job satisfaction.
(b) The argument makes a false analogy by comparing job
satisfaction to physical exercise without considering
fundamental differences between the two, leading to an
invalid conclusion.
(c) T h e a rg u m e n t c o m m i t s t h e f l a w o f c a u s a l
oversimplification by attributing job satisfaction solely
to physical exercise and neglecting other significant
factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction.
(d) The argument improperly relies on the authority of the
study’s researchers, assuming their conclusions about
the correlation between exercise and job satisfaction
are unquestionably valid.
Sol. Option (a) This option is incorrect as the argument does not
exhibit circular reasoning. The flaw lies in the assumption
of a causal link without sufficient evidence.
Option (b) This option is incorrect as the argument does not
make a false analogy between job satisfaction and physical
exercise. The flaw is related to causal reasoning.
Option (c) This is the correct answer. The argument
oversimplifies the relationship between physical exercise
and job satisfaction, neglecting other influential factors.
Option (d) This option is incorrect as the flaw is not related
to an inappropriate appeal to authority. The issue lies in the
reasoning behind the causal relationship presented in the
study.
Thus Option (c) is the correct answer.
Critical Reasoning PW
 10
Parallel Reasoning questions require you to find an answer
choice that follows a similar method of argumentation as the one
presented in the stimulus. This task involves first understanding
how the author in the stimulus constructs their argument and then
identifying a match among the answer choices. Imagine you’re
looking for a friend in a crowd, and each person represents an
answer choice. Your task is to find the person (answer choice)
who walks, talks, and behaves most similarly to your friend (the
stimulus). Now, let’s break it down. In the stimulus, the author uses
a specific way to build their argument, like pointing out causes
and effects or making analogies. Your job is to recognize this
approach. It’s like understanding your friend’s distinct features
in the crowd—their hairstyle, clothing, or unique gestures. Once
you’ve grasped the method of argumentation in the stimulus, you
scan the answer choices like searching the crowd. Look for the
one that echoes the same reasoning structure. It’s akin to finding
the person who mirrors your friend’s characteristics—the same
hairstyle, clothing style, or distinctive gestures.
PARALLEL REASONING QUESTION STEMS
“Which of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning
to the reasoning in the argument above?”
“Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most
similar to that exhibited by the argument above?”
“Which of the following arguments is most similar in its logical
features to the argument above?”
“Which of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern
of reasoning to the argument above?”
“The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most
parallel to that in which of the following?”
“Choose the answer that exhibits reasoning most analogous to
the pattern seen in the passage”.
“Identify the response that follows a line of reasoning most
closely resembling that of the given argument”.
“Whose approach to reasoning is most akin to that employed in
the argument above?”
Understanding the Meaning of Parallel Reasoning
It is like finding a twin for an argument. Imagine you have a
friend, and you’re both telling stories. Now, let’s say your friend
tells a story, and you want to find another story that’s similar in
how it’s put together, even though the details might be different.
Parallel Reasoning
In the same way, on tests like the CLAT, they give you a little
story or argument, and they ask you to pick out the story that’s
built the same way among a bunch of options. It’s not about the
specific things they’re talking about in the stories but about how
the stories are structured. For example, if your friend’s story
was about how eating healthy food makes people happy, and the
reason was that it makes them feel good, a similar story might
be about how exercising makes people happy, with the reason
being that it also makes them feel good. Even though the topics
(healthy food and exercising) are different, the way the stories
are built is the same—one thing leads to another. So, in parallel
reasoning, you’re like a detective looking for stories that have the
same logical structure. It’s not about the details or the characters;
it’s about how the ideas are connected. It’s a bit tricky because
the words might be different, but the way everything fits together
is what you’re matching. It’s like finding a puzzle piece that fits
just right—not the same picture, but the same shape. That’s what
parallel reasoning is all about!
Let us try to get more clarity with the help of a basic example
Original Story: Sarah studies every day, and she gets good
grades. So, studying helps her do well in school.
Parallel Story: Tom practices basketball every day, and he
performs well in games. So, practising helps him do well in sports.
Even though the topics are different (Sarah studies for
school, Tom practices basketball), the structure is the same. In
both stories, doing a certain thing (studying or practising) leads to
success (good grades or good performance). That’s what parallel
reasoning is like—finding stories or arguments that have the same
logical shape, even if the details are different. It’s a bit like saying,
“If this story makes sense, then this other one, even if it’s about
something else, should make sense in the same way”.
HOW TO SOLVE PARALLEL REASONING
QUESTIONS?
Let us try to come up with a step-by-step process to easily tackle
questions on parallel reasoning:
 Step 1: Uncover the Original Argument: Imagine you’re a
detective entering a crime scene. Similarly, read the argument
with a keen eye. Identify the main point—the heart of the
case—and the reasons supporting it. In our case, it’s like
discovering the motive behind a crime.
 Step 2: Break Down the Argument (Identify Key Clues):
Picture the argument as a puzzle. Identify the crucial pieces—
characters (John), actions (exercising), outcomes (staying
healthy) and the connections. Just like a detective analyzes
evidence, focus on the critical clues that construct the logic.
 Step 3: Grasp the Logic (Ignore the Details): Think of the
argument as a musical composition. Forget the specific notes
(John, exercising) and concentrate on the rhythm—the logical
structure. Understand the cause-and-effect flow without
getting lost in the details.
 Step 4: Approach Answer Choices (Explore New
Arguments): Now, shift your mindset to that of an explorer.
Move on to the answer choices, treating them as uncharted
territories. Look for arguments with a similar logical
structure. It’s about discovering new lands that follow the
same map.
 Step 5: Match Logical Structures (Pairing Twins): Become
a logical matchmaker. Read each answer choice and try to
pair its logical structure with the original argument. It’s like
finding a pair of shoes that not only look good but also have
a matching structure—cause leading to effect.
 Step 6: Eliminate Wrong Choices: Channel your inner
detective. Eliminate choices that deviate from the original
logical structure. It’s like ruling out suspects based on
inconsistencies or alibis that don’t align with the crime scene.
 Step 7: Choose the Best Match (Make the Final
Discovery): Imagine you’re the jury in a courtroom. Select
the answer that stands trial and closely mirrors the logic of
the original argument. It’s like choosing the most convincing
case based on the evidence presented.
Illustration
Passage 1
Oil companies argue strenuously that no further restrictions
should be placed on offshore drilling due to our country’s need for
energy resources, and the possible serious consequences if new
energy reserves are not located and explored now. Of course, the
vast sums of money the oil companies stand to reap as a result of
these drilling efforts completely invalidates any such arguments.
1. The questionable pattern of reasoning above is most similar
to which of the following?
(a) Everyone in town was wearing boots yesterday, and
everyone in town was also carrying an umbrella. Based
on this evidence it is obvious that wearing boots causes
one to carry an umbrella.
(b) The owner of a local gas station claims to be losing
money, but everyone knows that the oil industry is
earning record profits, which undoubtedly proves that
the gas station’s owner must be lying.
(c) The mayor has argued strenuously in favor of a
government housing subsidy. Since such a move would
benefit some town residents more than others, this plan
should not be implemented.
(d) Although the board claims that their vote in favour of
the merger is in the best interest of all shareholders, the
fact that the merger will be most beneficial to the board’s
members themselves shows that other shareholders
should object to the board’s decision.
44
Sol. Option (a): This argument commits a correlation-causation
fallacy. It assumes that because two things happened
together, one must have caused the other. This is not a
parallel flaw to the original argument, which attacks the oil
companies’ motives, not a correlation.
Option (b): This argument attacks the credibility of the gas
station owner based on the overall profits of the oil industry.
It’s parallel to the original as it questions the integrity of a
smaller entity based on the success of a larger related entity.
This is a strong contender.
Option (c): This argument introduces a different flaw. It
suggests that because a plan benefits some more than others,
it should not be implemented. It doesn’t attack the mayor’s
motives or imply any contradiction in the argument.
Option (d): This argument attacks the board’s decision
by pointing out their self-interest in the merger. It’s very
similar to the original as it questions the motives behind a
decision, undermining the claim of acting in the best interest
of all shareholders. This is a strong parallel to the original
argument.
In summary, options (a) and (c) can be eliminated as they
exhibit different flaws compared to the original argument.
Options (b) and (d) are closely related, but (d) is a better
match as it directly attacks the self-interest of the decision-
makers, aligning with the original argument’s pattern.
Therefore, the correct answer is (d).
Passage 2
The government claims that the construction of a new highway
will significantly reduce traffic congestion and boost economic
development in the region. However, considering the government
officials’ close ties to the construction companies awarded the
project, it’s clear that their primary motivation is personal gain
rather than the public interest.
2. Which of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of
reasoning most similar to that in the passage above?
(a) Local businesses argue that the installation of new
parking facilities will lead to increased customer
traffic. Yet, since many of these businesses have
financial connections with the construction companies
undertaking the parking projects, it’s evident that their
main goal is personal profit.
(b) Environmentalists advocate for the expansion of public
parks, asserting it will enhance the community’s well-
being. However, some of these environmentalists have
financial ties to landscaping companies involved in the
park projects, revealing their real intention of personal
enrichment.
(c) School administrators claim that implementing a
new curriculum will significantly improve student
performance. Yet, given the administrators’ financial
relationships with textbook publishers promoting
the new curriculum, it’s apparent that their primary
motivation is personal gain.
Critical Reasoning PW
 (d) Health officials propose the construction of a new
hospital to address the growing healthcare needs of the
community. Examining the officials’ close associations
with the construction firms set to build the hospital, it’s
clear that their main objective is personal profit rather
than the public’s well-being.
Sol. Option (a): The argument commits a similar flaw by attacking
the motives of those supporting a project, suggesting
personal profit motives due to financial connections. This
aligns with the original argument’s pattern.
Option (b): The argument parallels the original as it questions
the motives behind supporting a project, implying personal
enrichment due to financial ties with companies involved.
Option (c): This argument introduces a different flaw,
focusing on a new curriculum and financial ties. It
doesn’t align with the original argument, which centres on
construction projects.
Option (d): This argument closely mirrors the original as
it questions the motives behind supporting a construction
project, suggesting personal profit interests due to close
associations with construction firms. This is the correct
parallel reasoning.
In conclusion, Option (d) is the correct answer as it exhibits
a pattern of reasoning most similar to the original argument,
both involving construction projects and questioning the
motives based on financial associations.
Passage 3
Many citizens argue that increasing the number of police officers
on the streets is crucial for reducing crime rates. However, when
examining the backgrounds of those advocating for this policy,
it becomes apparent that most have financial interests in security
companies that stand to benefit from increased police presence.
3. Which of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of
reasoning most similar to that in the passage above?
(a) Parents are urging the school board to implement
stricter security measures, emphasizing the importance
of safeguarding students. Yet, upon investigation, it is
revealed that many of these parents own shares in a
Parallel Reasoning
security technology company poised to profit from the
proposed security upgrades.
(b) Environmentalists are calling for enhanced protection
of local wildlife habitats to preserve biodiversity.
However, a closer look reveals that several of these
environmentalists have ties to a consulting firm that
specializes in habitat restoration, indicating potential
financial motivations.
(c) Employees are advocating for the introduction of flexible
working hours, arguing that it would improve work-life
balance. Investigation reveals that a significant number
of these employees have connections to companies
selling productivity software designed for remote work.
(d) Citizens are pushing for stricter regulations on air
pollution, citing health concerns. Further scrutiny
exposes that many of these citizens have investments
in companies developing eco-friendly technologies,
suggesting a financial interest in supporting stringent
environmental regulations.
Sol. Option (a): The argument shares a parallel pattern as it
questions the motives of those supporting a policy, implying
financial interests due to connections with companies that
stand to benefit.
Option (b): This argument introduces a different context,
focusing on wildlife habitat protection and financial
connections. It does not align with the original argument’s
emphasis on police presence.
Option (c): The argument shifts the focus to flexible working
hours and financial ties to software companies. It does not
parallel the original argument regarding increased police
presence.
Option (d): This argument closely mirrors the original as it
questions the motives behind supporting a policy, suggesting
financial interests in companies related to the proposed
regulations. This is the correct parallel reasoning.
In conclusion, Option (d) is the correct answer as it exhibits
a pattern of reasoning most similar to the original argument,
both involving policy support and questioning the motives
based on financial interests.
45
 Practice Questions on CLAT Pattern
PASSAGE 1
A healthy loss and damage (L&D) fund, a three-decade-old
demand, is a fundamental expression of climate justice. The
L&D fund is a corpus of money and technologies that will be
replenished by developed countries and used by the rest to
respond to the more unavoidable effects of climate change. On the
first day of the COP28 climate talks underway in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), representatives of the member-states agreed to
operationalise the L&D fund. The announcement was dearly won:
at the end of the COP27 talks in Egypt last year, member-states
agreed to launch such a fund, thanks largely to the steadfast efforts
of the G-77 bloc of countries plus China, led by Pakistan. Four
meetings of the Transitional Committee (TC) were to follow to
determine how its money would be disbursed. But the issues in
the TC-4 meeting, which spilt over into an ad hoc TC-5 meeting
as well, highlight how the newly operationalised fund while
signalling optimism at COP28 and a diplomatic victory for its
Emirati president, has crucial issues.
First, it will be hosted by the World Bank for an interim
period of four years and will be overseen by an independent
secretariat. The Bank is expected to charge a significant overhead
fee. Developing countries resisted this proposition at first before
yielding at the TC-5 meeting, in exchange for some concessions.
Second, while some countries have committed amounts to the
fund—from $10 million by Japan to $100 million each by Germany
and the UAE—whether they will be periodically replenished is
not clear. The committed amounts are also insufficient, totalling
$450 million (for now) against an actual demand of several
billion dollars. This shortfall, though it is premature to deem it
so, comes against the backdrop of developed countries missing
their 2020 deadline to mobilise a promised $100 billion in climate
finance and managing to deliver only $89.6 billion in 2021. Next,
the contributions are voluntary even as every country has been
invited to contribute. Finally, the World Bank will have to meet
some conditions on managing the fund, including a degree of
transparency it has not brooked so far, and submit a report to the
Parties to the Paris Agreement. If its stewardship is determined
to be unsuitable, the fund can ‘exit’ the World Bank. The L&D
fund’s contents need to be easily accessible to those who need it
most, in a timely fashion, sans pedantic bureaucratic hurdles, and
in sufficient quantities. As things stand, there is little guarantee
that any of these requirements will be met. While the L&D fund
is finally online, a lot more needs to be done.
Source: Finding funds: The Hindu Editorial on COP28 and
the ‘loss and damage’ fund—The Hindu
1. Which of the following most appropriately describes the
central theme of the passage?
(a) The passage primarily discusses the operationalization
of the Loss and Damage (L&D) fund and highlights
46
the challenges and concerns associated with its
implementation.
(b) The passage mainly emphasizes the commitment of
developed countries to the L&D fund and the significant
contributions they have made to address climate change
effects.
(c) The passage primarily focuses on the success of COP28
climate talks and the diplomatic achievements of its
Emirati president.
(d) The passage mainly discusses the role of the World Bank
in hosting the L&D fund and the conditions it needs to
fulfil for effective fund management.
2. What assumption underlies the concerns raised in the passage
about the operationalization of the Loss and Damage (L&D)
fund?
(a) The assumption that the commitments made by
developed countries to the L&D fund are insufficient
and may not be periodically replenished.
(b) The assumption that the World Bank’s stewardship of the
L&D fund may face challenges and conditions related
to transparency may not be adequately met.
(c) The assumption that COP28 climate talks were
unsuccessful in addressing the fundamental issues
related to climate justice.
(d) The assumption that the G-77 bloc of countries plus
China played a negligible role in the launch of the L&D
fund during the COP27 talks.
3. Based on the information provided in the passage, what
can be reasonably inferred about the concerns raised by
developing countries during the COP28 climate talks?
(a) Developing countries were primarily concerned about
the financial commitments made by developed countries
to the Loss and Damage L&D fund.
(b) Developing countries successfully resisted the idea of
hosting the L&D fund at the World Bank during the
TC-5 meeting.
(c) The commitments made by Japan, Germany, and the
UAE to the L&D fund were deemed sufficient by the
developing countries.
(d) The TC-4 meeting during the COP28 talks did not play
a crucial role in determining the operationalization of
the L&D fund.
4. Which of the following represents a paradoxical situation
as discussed in the passage?
(a) The commitment amounts to the Loss and Damage
(L&D) fund are insufficient, yet some developing
countries initially resisted financial contributions during
the COP28 talks.
Critical Reasoning PW
 (b) The World Bank will oversee the L&D fund, but it is
expected to charge a significant overhead fee, creating
a potential financial burden on the developing countries.
(c) The COP27 talks agreed to launch the L&D fund, but the
TC-4 meeting highlighted issues that spilt over into an
ad hoc TC-5 meeting, creating delays and uncertainties.
(d) Developed countries missed their 2020 deadline to
mobilize $100 billion in climate finance, yet some
countries, including Japan, committed amounts to the
L&D fund.
5. What is the central flaw in the operationalization of the Loss
and Damage (L&D) fund, as discussed in the passage?
(a) The commitment amounts from developed countries
are insufficient to meet the actual demand for the L&D
fund.
(b) Developing countries initially resisted financial
contributions during the COP28 talks.
(c) The World Bank’s oversight with a significant overhead
fee creates potential financial burdens on developing
countries.
(d) The commitment amounts from countries like Japan,
Germany, and the UAE are voluntary.
PASSAGE 2
The latest provisional estimates of GDP, released by the National
Statistical Office, project real economic growth at 7.6%, a slight
deceleration from the 7.8% logged in the preceding three months.
Gross Value Added (GVA) across the eight broad sectors of the
economy also reflected a marginal slowing, with second-quarter
GVA registering a 7.4% expansion, 40 basis points slower than
the April-June period’s 7.8%. Robust double-digit expansions in
manufacturing, mining, utilities and construction offset the loss of
momentum across the other four sectors and helped ensure that
the year-on-year growth in GVA comfortably exceeded the 7%
pace for a second straight quarter. Manufacturing, buoyed by a
favourable base effect due to the contraction in the year-earlier
period, was the strongest performer by registering growth of
13.9%, a nine-quarter high. And construction witnessed its best
showing in five quarters, expanding 13.3%. Of the four other
sectors, the crucial ones of agriculture and the two services sectors
of trade, hotels, transport and communication, and financial, real
estate and professional services saw the pace of growth almost
halving from the fiscal first quarter. While year-on-year growth in
the agriculture, livestock and fishing sector slowed sharply to an
18-quarter low of 1.2%, the sector also experienced a sequential
contraction for the third straight quarter, underscoring the
precarity plaguing large portions of those earning from farming
and allied activities in the rural hinterland.
The slowdown in two key components of the services
economy—trade, hotels, transport and communication saw growth
slide to 4.3%, from 9.2% in the June quarter, and the expansion in
financial and realty services more than halved from the preceding
period to 6%—also merits a closer watch as the post-pandemic
rebound in services appears to have lost steam. Adding to the need
Practice Questions
to view the headline growth number with circumspection is the
fact that the lynchpin private final consumption expenditure, the
single-largest component of demand in the economy, is struggling
for traction. Growth in private consumption spending slowed
appreciably to 3.1% in the September quarter, from 6% in the
preceding three-month period, as rural demand remained affected
by the vagaries of a below-average monsoon. The NSO data also
reveal that the recent economic momentum owes its fillip in large
measure to front-loaded government spending, both in terms of
consumption demand and asset-creating capital investments. The
challenge for policymakers will be to help broaden the growth
base to ensure that all boats are lifted equally, both to sustain the
momentum and reduce inequality.
Source: Patchy expansion: The Hindu Editorial on
provisional estimates of GDP for the quarter ending September
30, 2023—The Hindu
6. Which of the following accurately describes the structure
of the passage?
(a) The passage introduces the latest GDP estimates,
discusses the performance of key sectors, highlights
the deceleration in growth, and concludes with a call
for policymakers to address challenges.
(b) The passage begins by analyzing the services sector,
moves on to the performance of manufacturing and
construction, discusses the agriculture sector, and
concludes with a call for broader economic growth.
(c) The passage starts by presenting GDP growth estimates,
delves into the performance of key sectors, analyzes
the slowdown in private consumption, and ends by
emphasizing the need for inclusive growth.
(d) The passage opens with the latest GDP estimates,
evaluates the robust performance of manufacturing and
construction, explores the slowdown in key sectors, and
concludes with a call for policy intervention.
7. What can be inferred from the passage regarding the factors
contributing to the recent economic momentum?
(a) The recent economic momentum is primarily driven by
robust private consumption spending.
(b) The growth in the services sector, particularly trade,
hotels, transport, and communication, is the primary
factor behind the recent economic momentum.
(c) Front-loaded government spending, both in terms
of consumption demand and asset-creating capital
investments, has significantly contributed to the recent
economic momentum.
(d) The expansion in the financial and realty services
sector has been the key driver of the recent economic
momentum.
8. Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the
argument that the recent economic momentum might face
challenges?
(a) The government plans to further increase spending in
the upcoming quarters.
(b) Private final consumption expenditure is expected to
rebound significantly in the next fiscal year.
47
 (c) The growth in the manufacturing sector is anticipated
to continue at a robust pace.
(d) Despite the overall economic growth, rural demand
remains affected by below-average monsoon conditions.
9. Which of the following statements is supported by the
information provided in the passage?
(a) T h e m a n u f a c t u r i n g s e c t o r h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y
underperformed in the past nine quarters.
(b) The decline in private final consumption expenditure is
primarily attributed to government policies.
(c) Construction witnessed its best showing in five quarters,
driven by a favourable base effect.
(d) The services sector experienced a significant rebound
in the September quarter after a prolonged slump.
10. Which of the following situations is most analogous to the
growth pattern described for the manufacturing sector in the
passage?
(a) A technology company experiences a surge in profits
due to the release of a highly anticipated product,
contributing to the overall growth in the technology
sector.
(b) A retail chain witnesses a decline in sales during a
particular quarter, but the overall retail industry shows
robust growth driven by other major players.
(c) A pharmaceutical company achieves record-breaking
sales in a quarter, outperforming its competitors in the
healthcare sector.
(d) An automobile manufacturer faces a decline in
production, but the transportation industry, as a whole,
sees increased demand for electric vehicles.
PASSAGE 3
Four months before India’s Supreme Court nudged open the
door, for making available fundamental rights and freedoms to
the embattled LGBTQI+ minority but stopped short of legalising
marriage equality, a neighbouring country had taken momentous
strides in that direction. In its landmark June 27 verdict, Nepal’s
Supreme Court, responding to a writ petition, legalised same-sex
marriage. The court’s interim order directed the government to
make arrangements to “temporarily register” the marriages of
“sexual minorities and non-traditional couples”. The order made
Nepal the first South Asian nation—and only the second in Asia
after Taiwan—to institutionalise marriage equality.
This week, Maya Gurung and Surendra Pandey, who have
been together for 10 years and had a temple ceremony in 2017
with the blessings of their families, became the first queer couple
in the country to officially register their wedding. Gurung and
Pandey’s dream of a life together, finally recognised and enabled
by the law, is one that will resonate within their country, and also
outside it, including in its neighbourhood—in south Asia and in
India where the October 17 verdict had left many disheartened. In
a world that is more interconnected than ever before, and where
ideas travel much more quickly and strike sparks even in distant
48
places, it can be hoped that what has happened in Nepal won’t
just stay in Nepal. In the aftermath of a verdict that did not go far
enough in India, the news of a queer couple’s marriage in Nepal
raises hopes of the next step being taken here in the not-too-distant
future, now that a model is available in the neighbourhood.
After all, the power of a good idea to set an example and
cross a border has been seen before—for example, with India’s
Right to Information (RTI) law, which grew from a grassroots
movement for greater accountability and transparency in
governance to a 2005 Act that subsequently became a model for
other nations in the region. After India, Bangladesh passed its
own RTI law in 2008, followed by Sri Lanka in 2016. Ideas that
drive change in the direction of greater equality and freedom can
make a larger difference and set off wider ripples and echoes. A
wedding in Nepal today can become a signpost in South Asia for
a more equal tomorrow.
Source: Nepal’s first official same-sex marriage: A beacon
of change for South Asia | The Indian Express
11. Which of the following best captures the main idea conveyed
by the passage?
(a) The Supreme Court’s decision in India to recognize
fundamental rights for the LGBTQI+ community,
although falling short of legalizing marriage equality,
has raised hopes for future progress.
(b) Nepal’s Supreme Court’s landmark decision to legalize
same-sex marriage has the potential to inspire positive
change in the region, including India, where recent legal
developments left many disheartened.
(c) Maya Gurung and Surendra Pandey’s official registration
of their wedding in Nepal symbolizes a significant step
towards marriage equality and LGBTQI+ rights across
South Asia.
(d) The interconnected world and the power of influential
ideas, illustrated by Nepal’s legalization of same-sex
marriage, suggest a hopeful trajectory for achieving
greater equality and freedom in the region.
12. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the
argument that Nepal’s legalization of same-sex marriage
could inspire positive change in the region, including India?
(a) Nepal’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage was
met with strong opposition from conservative religious
groups within the country.
(b) India’s LGBTQI+ activists have expressed scepticism
about drawing inspiration from legal developments in
neighbouring countries, emphasizing the unique socio-
cultural contexts.
(c) Despite legal recognition, same-sex couples in Nepal
continue to face social stigma and discrimination,
limiting the practical impact of the legalization.
(d) The Supreme Court’s decision in India, although not
legalizing marriage equality, has prompted increased
public discourse and awareness about LGBTQI+ rights.
Critical Reasoning PW
 13. In the passage, what role does the statement “This week,
Maya Gurung and Surendra Pandey, who have been together
for 10 years and had a temple ceremony in 2017 with the
blessings of their families, became the first queer couple in
the country to officially register their wedding” play in the
overall argument?
(a) It serves as a counterexample, illustrating that despite
legal recognition, same-sex couples in Nepal still face
challenges.
(b) It functions as supporting evidence, showcasing a
tangible and positive outcome of Nepal’s legalization
of same-sex marriage.
(c) It acts as a contradiction, highlighting the disparity
between legal recognition and the actual experiences
of LGBTQI+ individuals.
(d) It plays a neutral role, providing factual detail without
contributing to the argument’s overall impact.
14. What paradoxical situation is presented in the passage?
(a) The Supreme Court’s decision in Nepal, legalizing
same-sex marriage, creates a paradox as it contradicts
the conservative values prevalent in the country.
(b) The passage describes a paradox where the recognition
of same-sex marriage in Nepal contrasts sharply with the
disappointment felt in India following a Supreme Court
verdict that fell short of legalizing marriage equality.
(c) The paradox lies in the fact that while India’s Supreme
Court made strides toward LGBTQI+ rights, it stopped
short of legalizing marriage equality, whereas Nepal
achieved marriage equality through a landmark verdict.
(d) The passage introduces a paradox by portraying Nepal as
the first South Asian nation to institutionalize marriage
equality while India, its neighbouring country, struggles
to make significant progress in LGBTQI+ rights.
15. What assumption underlies the hope expressed in the
passage regarding the impact of Nepal’s same-sex marriage
legalization on other countries?
(a) The assumption is that the legal recognition of same-
sex marriage in Nepal will automatically inspire other
countries, especially in South Asia, to follow suit.
(b) The assumption is that the recognition of same-sex
marriage in Nepal is solely based on the influence of
global ideas and not on the country’s internal socio-
cultural factors.
(c) The assumption is that the disappointment felt in India
following its Supreme Court verdict will prompt the
country to quickly adopt the same-sex marriage model
from Nepal.
(d) The assumption is that the legal decisions in Nepal have
always set an example for its neighbouring countries to
follow in matters of social and cultural change.
PASSAGE 4
Henry Kissinger, the best-known American diplomat of modern
times, is deeply associated in the Indian mind with the American
tilt to Pakistan during the 1971 war to liberate Bangladesh. Many
Practice Questions
in India also view Kissinger as the one man responsible for the
rise of China by drawing it into a long-term partnership with the
United States against the Soviet Union. But Kissinger is more
than the “villain” of the 1971 war and a lifelong “friend of China”.
His contributions towards shaping American foreign policy and
the evolution of the post-war world in the second half of the
20th century are immense and consequential. As Delhi reflects
on Kissinger’s celebrated but controversial legacy, his statecraft
holds lessons for a rising India seeking a larger role in the world.
The US tilt to Pakistan in 1971 did not involve firing an
American shot against India, nor did it affect the outcome of the
Bangladesh war. In criticising Kissinger’s China policy, it is easy
to forget that New Delhi was a much bigger political champion of
China in the 1950s when America was trying to isolate it. Large
countries like India can’t be obsessed with specific moments
in history and lose sight of the larger geopolitical dynamic. In
Kissinger’s realpolitik, protecting an important Cold War ally—
Pakistan—and turning an adversary like Communist China into
a strategic partner was driven by a deep consideration for US
interests in the 1970s. That world has now gone. There is now a
robust India-US partnership no longer tied to Pakistan and aimed
at securing an Asia that an assertive China has destabilised. As
an exponent of power politics, Kissinger had no hesitation in
accepting later that he would have done precisely what PM Indira
Gandhi did in 1971—seize an opportune moment to break up
Pakistan and establish India’s primacy in the Subcontinent.
After the Cold War ended in 1991 and Delhi embarked on
economic reforms, Kissinger became an ardent supporter of the
US-India partnership. After India’s nuclear tests in 1998, he was
among the first to urge Washington to recognise the reality of
an atomic India and find a political accommodation with Delhi
by putting aside the non-proliferation ideology. In an interview
earlier this year, Kissinger said India’s foreign policy under
PM Narendra Modi comes closest to his statecraft based on
realpolitik. Kissinger’s praise is not surprising, given the profound
reorientation of Indian diplomacy in recent years. Yet, Delhi also
needs to learn from the tragedy of Kissinger’s worldview. While
he sought to nudge the US towards pragmatism and away from the
twin extremes of isolationism and ideological crusades, he had to
repeatedly sacrifice the moral imperatives of justice in the pursuit
of order and stability—from Indo-China to South Asia and Latin
America. That made him a hated figure within left-liberal circles
in the US and beyond. Delhi may be right to reorient its foreign
policy towards realism, but it can’t afford to lose the balance
between power and principle, between interests and values, in the
conduct of its international relations.
Source: Express View: Henry Kissinger was a man of the
world | The Indian Express
16. What structural pattern does the passage primarily follow,
and what does it suggest about the author’s perspective on
Henry Kissinger’s legacy?
(a) The passage begins with an overview of Kissinger’s
controversial reputation in India, followed by an
examination of specific historical events, and concludes
with a cautionary note for India’s foreign policy.
49
 (b) The passage starts with a critical assessment of
Kissinger’s role in the 1971 war, then delves into his
contributions to shaping American foreign policy, and
ends with a reflection on the lessons for India’s rising
role in the world.
(c) The passage unfolds chronologically, starting with
Kissinger’s actions during the 1971 war, moving to the
post-Cold War era, and concluding with a caution against
India following Kissinger’s worldview.
(d) It begins with India’s perception of Kissinger, transitions
to his contributions, then critiques his realpolitik
worldview, and finally suggests lessons for India’s
foreign policy.
17. What can be reasonably inferred about Henry Kissinger’s
evolving stance towards India based on the passage?
(a) Kissinger’s early Cold War-era isolationist approach led
to a strained relationship with India, but he later became
a strong advocate for a robust India-U.S. partnership.
(b) Kissinger consistently viewed India as a Cold War ally
and remained critical of its actions, particularly during
the 1971 war, irrespective of changing geopolitical
dynamics.
(c) Kissinger’s initial attempts to isolate China were
opposed by India in the 1950s, but later, he recognized
the importance of a strategic partnership with India in
the post-Cold War era.
(d) The passage provides no information about Kissinger’s
evolving stance towards India; it primarily focuses on
his legacy and contributions.
18. What could potentially weaken the argument that Henry
Kissinger’s statecraft holds valuable lessons for a rising
India?
(a) Kissinger’s controversial legacy, including his sacrifice
of moral imperatives for stability, may be viewed as a
liability rather than a source of valuable lessons.
(b) The passage emphasizes Kissinger’s support for Pakistan
during the 1971 war, which could be considered a
questionable approach from an ethical standpoint.
(c) Kissinger’s praise for India’s foreign policy under
PM Narendra Modi contradicts the argument that his
statecraft provides relevant lessons for a rising India.
(d) The passage suggests that Kissinger’s realpolitik
approach was more suitable for the Cold War era, raising
doubts about its applicability to the present geopolitical
landscape.
19. What is the central flaw in the argument that Henry
Kissinger’s statecraft holds valuable lessons for a rising
India?
(a) The argument fails to consider Kissinger’s early attempts
to isolate Communist China when India championed its
cause in the 1950s.
(b) The passage downplays the impact of the U.S. tilt
towards Pakistan during the 1971 war on India,
overlooking potential consequences.
50
(c) There is a contradiction in the passage regarding
Kissinger’s stance on India, as it initially portrays him
negatively but later praises his support for the U.S.-India
partnership.
(d) The passage doesn’t adequately address the criticism
that Kissinger’s realpolitik often compromised moral
imperatives for the sake of stability.
20. Which of the following scenarios would most parallel the
realpolitik approach of Henry Kissinger, as described in the
passage?
(a) A country, in pursuit of economic interests, forms
strategic alliances with nations known for human rights
violations, overlooking ethical concerns.
(b) A nation adopts an isolationist stance, avoiding
interference in global affairs, to focus on domestic
economic growth and stability.
(c) A government, prioritizing moral imperatives,
actively engages in international conflicts to address
humanitarian issues, even at the risk of strained relations.
(d) A country seeks ideological alignment with multiple
nations to build a coalition against a common adversary,
emphasizing shared values over pragmatic interests.
PASSAGE 5
Sometimes, all that is needed is someone who will listen. In the
cities of central and west Africa, among the poorest regions of the
world, where mental health support is beyond access for many,
hairdressers are being trained to provide at-risk people with a
sympathetic ear and a shoulder to cry on. Designated as “mental
health ambassadors”, they are taught by mental health professionals
to spot non-verbal signs of distress as they braid and blow-dry their
clients’ hair, gently seek information and give advice.
This creative approach to addressing what is now recognised
as a basic need has a lesson for other countries struggling with
a similar combination of low awareness and limited access to
infrastructure and trained personnel. In India, for example, as
noted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and
Family Welfare in August, there are only 0.75 psychiatrists per
1,00,000 population. The Union government’s national tele-
mental health programme, called Tele Mental Health Assistance
and Networking Across States (Tele-MANAS), providing free
and round-the-clock assistance to those in distress, has made
some difference—in his address at a Mental Health Day event last
month, the Union Minister for Health said that 3,50,000 people
had been counselled since the initiative’s rollout in 2022. But in
a nation of 1.4 billion, where about 40 per cent of the population
has reported mental health distress, more needs to be done.
This could mean more proactive measures, including training
people whose work involves daily contact with others, to recognise
signs of distress. Salon professionals are particularly well-suited
for this, as seen in the African initiative, as well as programmes
like Hair 3Rs and Hairdressers with Hearts in Australia. As long
as shame, lack of knowledge and money remain deterrents,
creating networks of support within communities and enabling
Critical Reasoning PW
conversations in intimate, non-intimidating settings, can help a lot
more people in distress.
Source: Blowdry and vent: Now, hairdressers who are
qualified to counsel | The Indian Express
21. What is the primary purpose of the passage?
(a) To highlight the shortage of mental health professionals
in India and criticize the government’s efforts in
addressing the issue.
(b) To showcase an innovative approach in central and west
Africa where hairdressers are trained to support people
with mental health issues.
(c) To commend the success of India’s national mental health
program and its positive impact on the population.
(d) To emphasize the need for more mental health awareness
and support initiatives, especially in countries with
limited access to mental health infrastructure.
22. What role does the statement “In India, for example, as noted
by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and
Family Welfare in August, there are only 0.75 psychiatrists
per 1,00,000 population” play in the passage?
(a) To criticize the efforts of the Indian government in
addressing mental health issues.
(b) To emphasize the success of India’s mental health
initiatives.
(c) To provide statistical evidence supporting the need
for proactive measures in addressing mental health
challenges in India.
(d) To highlight the shortage of mental health professionals
in central and West Africa.
23 What is the main conclusion drawn from the passage?
(a) Hairdressers in central and west Africa are providing
effective mental health support.
(b) The Indian government’s Tele-MANAS program has
significantly improved mental health assistance.
Answer Key
1. (a) 2. (b) 3. (d) 4. (b) 5. (c)
11. (b) 12. (b) 13. (b) 14. (b) 15. (d)
21. (b) 22. (c) 23. (c) 24. (d) 25. (d)
Practice Questions
(c) The shortage of mental health professionals in India
necessitates proactive measures.
(d) Initiatives like Hair 3Rs in Australia can be implemented
successfully in India.
24. Which of the following presents a paradox discussed in the
passage?
(a) The national mental health program in India has made a
significant impact despite the shortage of psychiatrists.
(b) In central and west Africa, mental health support is
recognized as a basic need, but access to infrastructure
and trained personnel is limited.
(c) Hairdressers in Africa are trained as mental health
ambassadors, addressing the lack of awareness and
access to support.
(d) Despite 40% of the Indian population reporting mental
health distress, only 0.75 psychiatrists per 1,00,000
population are available.
25. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the
argument presented in the passage?
(a) The national mental health program in India has received
positive feedback from a majority of those who have
undergone counselling.
(b) Mental health awareness campaigns in India have led to
an increase in the number of people seeking professional
help for mental health issues.
(c) The training of hairdressers as mental health ambassadors
in Africa has not resulted in a significant improvement
in mental health outcomes for at-risk individuals.
(d) In India, the majority of mental health distress cases are
related to economic factors, and addressing these factors
would have a more substantial impact on overall mental
well-being.
6. (c) 7. (c) 8. (d) 9. (c) 10. (d)
16. (b) 17. (c) 18. (a) 19. (b) 20. (b)
51
 Solutions
1. (a) Correct. The passage primarily revolves around the
operationalization of the Loss and Damage (L&D) fund
and highlights the challenges and concerns associated with
its implementation. It discusses the host organization, the
commitments made by some countries, and the conditions
set for fund management.
Option (b) Incorrect. The passage does mention the
commitments made by some countries, but it doesn’t
emphasize them as the main theme. Instead, it discusses the
insufficiency of the committed amounts and the voluntary
nature of contributions.
Option (c) Incorrect. While the passage mentions the COP28
climate talks and the diplomatic victory of its Emirati
president, these are not the central themes. The primary
focus is on the challenges and issues related to the newly
operationalized L&D fund.
Option (d) Incorrect. Although the passage discusses
the World Bank’s role in hosting the L&D fund and the
conditions it needs to fulfil, this is not the central theme.
The main theme is the operationalization of the L&D fund
and the challenges associated with it.
2. (a) This statement is not an assumption but a stated concern
in the passage. The passage mentions the insufficiency of
the committed amounts and questions whether they will be
periodically replenished.
Option (b) Correct. The concerns in the passage revolve
around the assumption that the World Bank’s stewardship
of the L&D fund may face challenges and conditions related
to transparency may not be adequately met. The passage
discusses the conditions imposed on the World Bank and
the potential challenges associated with its role.
Option (c) Incorrect. The passage does not assume that
COP28 climate talks were unsuccessful. It mentions the
success of the talks in agreeing to operationalize the L&D
fund.
Option (d) Incorrect. The passage acknowledges the role of
the G-77 bloc of countries plus China in the launch of the
L&D fund during the COP27 talks. It doesn’t assume their
negligible role.
3. (a) Incorrect. The passage mentions concerns about the
L&D fund’s operationalization, but it doesn’t specify that
developing countries were primarily concerned about
financial commitments. The concerns include the hosting of
the fund by the World Bank and the insufficient committed
amounts.
Option (b) Incorrect. The passage states that the L&D fund
will be hosted by the World Bank for an interim period, and
developing countries resisted this proposition initially but
yielded later. It does not imply successful resistance during
52
the TC-5 meeting.
Option (c) Incorrect. The passage mentions that committed
amounts, including those by Japan, Germany, and the UAE,
are insufficient, and it does not suggest that developing
countries deem them sufficient.
Option (d) Correct. The passage indicates that issues in
the TC-4 meeting spilt over into an ad hoc TC-5 meeting,
highlighting the crucial role of both meetings in determining
the operationalization of the L&D fund.
4. (a) Incorrect. This option highlights a factual situation where
committed amounts are insufficient, and some developing
countries initially resisted financial contributions, but it
doesn’t present a paradox.
Option (b) Correct. The hosting of the L&D fund by the
World Bank, expected to charge a significant overhead fee,
creates a paradox where the overseeing institution poses a
potential financial burden.
Option (c) Incorrect. The delay caused by issues in the TC-4
meeting and subsequent spillage into TC-5 is a chronological
sequence of events rather than a paradoxical situation.
Option (d) Incorrect. The missed 2020 deadline for climate
finance commitments and subsequent commitments to the
L&D fund represent a factual situation without a paradox.
5. (a) Incorrect. While insufficient commitment amounts are
discussed in the passage, it is not considered a flaw but a
factual situation.
Option (b) Incorrect. The initial resistance of developing
countries to financial contributions is not presented as a
central flaw but as part of the negotiation process.
Option (c) Correct. The central flaw lies in the World Bank’s
oversight, with the expectation of a significant overhead fee,
creating a potential financial burden on developing countries.
Option (d) Incorrect. Voluntary contributions are mentioned
in the passage but are not highlighted as a central flaw in
the operationalization of the L&D fund.
6. (c) Correct. The passage follows a structure where it
introduces GDP growth estimates, discusses the performance
of key sectors, analyzes the slowdown in private consumption,
and concludes with a call for inclusive growth.
Option (a) Incorrect. While this option captures some
elements, it does not specifically mention the analysis of
the slowdown in private consumption, a crucial aspect of
the passage.
Option (b) Incorrect. This option misrepresents the order of
the topics discussed in the passage.
Option (d) Incorrect. While this option includes elements
from the passage, it does not accurately reflect the order in
which the topics are presented.
Critical Reasoning PW
 7. (c) Correct. The passage explicitly mentions that the recent
economic momentum owes its fillip in large measure
to front-loaded government spending, both in terms of
consumption demand and asset-creating capital investments.
Option (a) Incorrect. The passage does not support the claim
that robust private consumption spending is the primary
driver of the recent economic momentum.
Option (b) Incorrect. While the slowdown in the growth of
the services sector is discussed, the passage does not suggest
that the growth in this sector is the primary factor behind
the recent economic momentum.
Option (d) Incorrect. The passage does not provide
information to support the claim that the expansion in the
financial and realty services sector has been the key driver
of the recent economic momentum.
8. (d) Correct. This statement directly supports the argument
by highlighting a potential challenge to the recent economic
momentum—the fact that rural demand remains affected
by below-average monsoon conditions. This suggests a
limitation in the broad-based growth.
Option (a) Incorrect. This option suggests a potential
continuation of government spending, which, if anything,
strengthens the argument rather than indicating a challenge.
Option (b) Incorrect. This option provides a positive outlook
for private final consumption expenditure, which weakens
the argument about potential challenges to economic
momentum.
Option (c) Incorrect. The anticipated robust pace of growth
in the manufacturing sector does not address the concerns
or challenges mentioned in the argument, and therefore, it
does not strengthen the argument.
9. (c) Correct. The passage states that construction witnessed
its best showing in five quarters, which indicates positive
performance driven by a favourable base effect.
Option (a) Incorrect. The passage mentions that the
manufacturing sector was the strongest performer in the
current quarter, growing at a nine-quarter high.
Option (b) Incorrect. The passage does not attribute
the decline in private final consumption expenditure to
government policies.
Option (d) Incorrect. The passage does not provide
information on a significant rebound in the services sector; it
highlights concerns about the slowdown in key components
of the services economy.
10. (d) Correct. The passage mentions that the manufacturing
sector, driven by a favourable base effect, was the strongest
performer, achieving a nine-quarter high in growth. This is
analogous to an automobile manufacturer facing a decline
in production (manufacturing sector decline), but the
transportation industry as a whole sees increased demand
for electric vehicles (overall growth in the manufacturing
sector).
Practice Questions
Option (a) Incorrect. This scenario involves a surge in profits
for a technology company, but it does not mirror the decline
and subsequent growth pattern described in the passage.
Option (b) Incorrect. While it involves a decline in sales for
a retail chain, the passage discusses overall growth in the
manufacturing sector, which is not paralleled in this option.
Option (c) Incorrect. The scenario of a pharmaceutical
company achieving record-breaking sales does not parallel
the growth pattern discussed for the manufacturing sector
in the passage.
11. (b) Correct. The passage discusses Nepal’s Supreme Court
legalizing same-sex marriage and how this development
has the potential to inspire positive change in the region,
including India, where recent legal developments regarding
LGBTQI+ rights were not as progressive as hoped.
Option (a) Incorrect. While this option mentions the Supreme
Court’s decision in India, it does not capture the broader
theme of the passage, which emphasizes the influence of
Nepal’s decision on the region.
Option (c) Incorrect. While Maya Gurung and Surendra
Pandey’s wedding is mentioned in the passage, the main idea
is not solely focused on this specific event but rather on the
broader implications for LGBTQI+ rights in the region.
Option (d) Incorrect. While the interconnected world and
the power of influential ideas are discussed in the passage,
the central theme revolves around Nepal’s legalization of
same-sex marriage and its potential impact on the region,
particularly India.
12. (b) Correct. This option weakens the argument by
highlighting the scepticism expressed by LGBTQI+
activists in India about drawing inspiration from legal
developments in neighbouring countries, suggesting that
such developments may not necessarily lead to positive
change.
Option (a) Incorrect. Opposition from conservative religious
groups within Nepal does not necessarily undermine the
argument about inspiring positive change in the broader
region.
Option (c) Incorrect. Social stigma and discrimination in
Nepal, despite legal recognition, may still be perceived as
a localized issue and not necessarily diminish the potential
impact on neighbouring countries.
Option (d) Incorrect. The increased public discourse and
awareness in India, prompted by the Supreme Court’s
decision, could be seen as a positive development that aligns
with the argument presented in the passage.
13. (b) Correct. The statement provides supporting evidence by
showcasing a positive outcome of Nepal’s legalization of
same-sex marriage. It reinforces the argument that legalizing
same-sex marriage can lead to tangible and progressive
changes.
Option (a) Incorrect. The statement does not serve as a
counterexample but rather as a positive illustration.
53
 Option (c) Incorrect. The statement does not present a
contradiction but aligns with the argument’s perspective on
the positive impact of legal recognition.
Option (d) Incorrect. The statement actively contributes to
the argument by presenting a concrete example of a positive
development resulting from the legalization of same-sex
marriage.
14. (b) Correct. The paradox is evident in the contrast between
the positive development of Nepal legalizing same-sex
marriage and the disappointment expressed in India
following a Supreme Court verdict that did not fully embrace
marriage equality.
Option (a) Incorrect. The values in Nepal are not described
as paradoxical in the passage.
Option (c) Incorrect. While there is a comparison between
India and Nepal, the paradox lies more in the contrast
between the two countries’ outcomes rather than in the
actions of India’s Supreme Court.
Option (d) Incorrect. The paradox is not solely based
on the comparison between Nepal and India but on the
unexpected contrast between Nepal’s achievement and
India’s disappointment.
15. (a) Incorrect. While the passage suggests hope for a positive
impact, it doesn’t explicitly state that other countries will
automatically follow Nepal’s lead.
Option (b) Incorrect. The passage doesn’t exclusively attribute
Nepal’s decision to global influence; it acknowledges a
model being available in the neighbourhood.
Option (c) Incorrect. The passage does not make this
assumption; it focuses more on the positive influence of
Nepal’s example rather than disappointment in India.
Option (d) Correct. The assumption is that Nepal’s decisions,
especially regarding social and cultural change, have the
potential to influence neighbouring countries, as suggested
by the reference to the RTI law.
16. (a) Incorrect. The passage doesn’t follow this structure. It
provides a broader perspective on Kissinger’s legacy and
lessons for India, rather than focusing on specific historical
events.
Option (b) Correct. The passage begins by addressing
Kissinger’s association with India and China, then explores
his contributions, and concludes by reflecting on the
implications for India’s foreign policy.
Option (c) Incorrect. The passage does not strictly follow
a chronological order. It discusses various aspects of
Kissinger’s legacy without adhering to a strict timeline.
Option (d) Incorrect. While the passage does discuss India’s
perception, Kissinger’s contributions, and lessons for India,
it does not strictly follow this sequence.
This question assesses the reader’s understanding of the
structural organization of the passage and its implications
for the author’s perspective on Kissinger’s legacy.
54
17. (a) Incorrect. The passage doesn’t suggest that Kissinger had
an isolationist approach during the Cold War. It highlights
his realpolitik, which involved both protecting allies and
forming strategic partnerships.
Option (b) Incorrect. The passage acknowledges Kissinger’s
role in protecting Pakistan during the 1971 war but also notes
his support for the U.S.-India partnership post-Cold War.
Option (c) Correct. The passage indicates that after the
Cold War, Kissinger became a supporter of the U.S.-India
partnership, especially after India’s nuclear tests in 1998.
Option (d) Incorrect. The passage does provide information
about Kissinger’s evolving stance towards India, especially
in the post-Cold War period.
18. (a) Correct. The argument in the passage revolves around
Kissinger’s statecraft providing lessons for a rising India. If
readers perceive Kissinger’s sacrifice of moral imperatives
as a significant drawback, it weakens the argument.
Option (b) Incorrect. The passage acknowledges Kissinger’s
support for Pakistan during the 1971 war but doesn’t
explicitly argue that it weakens the lessons for a rising India.
Option (c) Incorrect. Kissinger’s praise for India’s foreign
policy under PM Narendra Modi aligns with the argument,
reinforcing the idea that his statecraft offers valuable lessons.
Option (d) Incorrect. While the passage mentions the end
of the Cold War, it doesn’t explicitly argue that Kissinger’s
realpolitik is outdated or unsuitable for the present
geopolitical landscape.
19. (a) Incorrect. The argument doesn’t necessarily need to
consider every aspect of Kissinger’s career, and the focus
is on his contributions and lessons for a rising India.
Option (b) Correct. The central flaw is that the argument
downplays or dismisses the impact of the U.S. tilt towards
Pakistan during the 1971 war, which could be considered a
significant flaw in Kissinger’s statecraft.
Option (c) Incorrect. The passage does not portray Kissinger
negatively but rather acknowledges his evolving stance and
praises his support for the U.S.-India partnership.
Option (d) Incorrect. The passage acknowledges Kissinger’s
sacrifice of moral imperatives but does not consider it a flaw
in the argument.
20. (a) Correct. This scenario aligns with the realpolitik
approach, where economic interests take precedence over
ethical concerns, reflecting Kissinger’s pragmatic stance.
Option (b) Incorrect. This option describes an isolationist
stance, which contrasts with Kissinger’s approach to active
international engagement.
Option (c) Incorrect. This option emphasizes moral
imperatives, which go against the realpolitik approach
advocated by Kissinger.
Option (d) Incorrect. This scenario emphasizes shared
values over pragmatic interests, which is not consistent with
Kissinger’s realpolitik.
Critical Reasoning PW
 21. (b) Correct. The passage primarily discusses the innovative
approach of training hairdressers in central and west Africa
to provide mental health support, drawing attention to the
potential application of similar methods in other countries.
Option (a) Incorrect. While the passage mentions the
shortage of psychiatrists in India, it does not criticize the
government’s efforts but rather suggests a creative approach
to address the issue.
Option (c) Incorrect. Although the passage mentions
India’s tele-mental health program, it does not focus on
commending its success but rather highlights the need for
more proactive measures.
Option (d) Incorrect. While the passage emphasizes the
need for mental health awareness and support initiatives,
its primary focus is on the innovative approach involving
hairdressers in Africa.
22. (c) Correct. The statement is used to provide statistical
evidence supporting the need for proactive measures in
addressing mental health challenges in India. It contributes
to the argument that there is a shortage of mental health
professionals in the country.
Option (a) Incorrect. The statement does not criticize the
efforts of the Indian government; instead, it focuses on
presenting a factual observation.
Option (b) Incorrect. The statement does not emphasize the
success of India’s mental health initiatives but rather points
out a challenge.
Option (d) Incorrect. The statement is specifically about
India and its mental health professional shortage, not central
and west Africa.
23. (c) Correct. The main conclusion of the passage is that the
shortage of mental health professionals in India necessitates
proactive measures. The passage discusses the training of
hairdressers in Africa as a creative approach and suggests
that similar proactive measures are needed in India.
Option (a) Incorrect. The passage does discuss the use of
hairdressers in Africa but does not make a general claim
about their overall effectiveness in providing mental health
support.
Option (b) Incorrect. While the Tele-MANAS program is
mentioned as making some difference, the main focus is on
Practice Questions
the broader need for proactive measures due to the shortage
of mental health professionals.
Option (d) Incorrect. The passage does not specifically
discuss the implementation of initiatives like Hair 3Rs in
Australia in India.
24. (d) Correct. The paradox discussed in the passage is the
contrast between the high reported mental health distress
in India (40% of the population) and the low availability of
psychiatrists (0.75 per 1,00,000 population). This creates a
paradoxical situation where there is a significant need for
mental health assistance, but the professional resources are
insufficient.
Option (a) Incorrect. This option does not present a paradox.
It states that the national mental health program has made
a significant impact, which is not contradictory within the
context of the passage.
Option (b) Incorrect. While the limited access to mental
health support in central and west Africa is highlighted, it
doesn’t present a paradox within the passage.
Option (c) Incorrect. The training of hairdressers as mental
health ambassadors in Africa is presented as a creative
solution, but it doesn’t introduce a paradox in the context
of the passage.
25. (d) Correct. This option would weaken the argument by
suggesting that addressing economic factors, rather than
solely focusing on increasing the number of psychiatrists
or mental health support programs, could have a more
significant impact on mental well-being in India.
Option (a) Incorrect. Positive feedback from those who
underwent counselling does not necessarily weaken the
argument; it could support the effectiveness of the mental
health program.
Option (b) Incorrect. An increase in people seeking
professional help due to mental health awareness campaigns
does not directly weaken the argument. It could be seen as
a positive outcome.
Option (c) Incorrect. The lack of significant improvement
in mental health outcomes from training hairdressers as
mental health ambassadors does not necessarily weaken the
argument. The effectiveness of this specific program is not
the main focus of the passage.
55
 CLAT ACHIEVERS
Pro 2025
For CLAT, AILET & OLETs

Daily Practice Problems With

Video Solutions
Monthly Magazines of Current Affairs
& Legal Reasoning (January 2024
to April 2025)
10,000+ Questions Bank in DPP Format &
Lecture Notes

30 Study E-Modules & Practice

E-Modules
Annual subscription to access all the
upcoming batches of CLAT 2025

Khazana Package: 120+ Best Lectures

of CLAT 2024
80+ Hours Marathon Revision Lectures
(Oct-Nov. 2024)

30 Mock Test Series with video solutions

10,000+ Infinite Practice Questions

(Passage Based)

SAVE BIG on CLAT ACHIEVERS Pro 2025 Enrolment

Enjoy a Discount of FLAT ₹ 500/- Off with COUPON CODE CLAT500