Intro to Critical Reasoning:

Harsha Bogle once said, Common sense is not so common. If students are asked to define
Logic they will say that logic is something that is scientific, rational, logical and systematical.
Logic is organized common sense or the study of the differences between valid and invalid
reasoning (where the truth of one or more statements leads to something that we believe will follow
or we believe to be true).
As managers, we least of all, have to make sense. Companies pay us for our intellectual worth or
contribution. If we cannot communicate or reason logically, then we would be damaging the
company instead of managing it.
Reasoning is an activity the act of providing reasons to convince people about one's personal
claim/ conviction/ stand/ decision etc. We can identify reasons for something or take reasoning
forward for further understanding. One must be critical about reading (seriousness of details, take
into account words, their reliance, bits of information etc).
There are 2 types of logic:
A) Deductive Logic
All boys are honest (General/ Universal)
R is a boy.
R is honest. (Specific/ Particular)
In Deductive Logic, we derive from what we already have. Deductive arguments are perfect
arguments. They do not give rise to disputes)
B) Inductive Logic
R is a boy. (Specific/ Particular)
R is honest.
All boys are honest. (General/ Universal)
In Inductive Logic, we add something to what is already there and induce the final statement. The
induction should be applicable, relevant to circumstances and justifiable. If I induce something that
cannot be justified, then inductive reasoning goes wrong. Inductive logic gives rise to disputes at
most times. A lot of logic in life is inductive.
Another example - Sherlock Holmes and Watson witness the scene of crime where in there is a
corpse in a pool of blood with shoeprints leading to the door. Watson says, The killer had size 8
feet. (This is inductive logic).
Sherlock says, No Watson. We can only say that the person wore size 8 shoes. (This is deductive
logic).
Critical reasoning has been a part of most MBA entrance exams, tested through specific questions,
as well as through certain questions that may appear in reading comprehension. In GMAT, there are
14 questions on C.R. In CMAT, there are about 6 to 10 questions on C.R.What is tested is ones
ability to understand arguments, evaluate their logic, draw correct conclusions etc. If one reads
carefully and critically, understands simple logic and reasoning, and separates relevant ideas from
the irrelevant ones, one can do well in this area.
Questions that relate specifically to Critical Reasoning usually appear in the form of a small passage
on which one or two questions are asked. This passage is usually called an argument. The argument
is followed by a question/s. Answer choices follow. There are many types of questions that can be
asked arrive at conclusions, identify assumptions, point out flaws, strengthen, weaken, identify

parallels, resolve paradoxes, and so on. Some R.C. Questions are C.R. Questions in disguise
(Conclusion, Strengthen argument, Weaken argument). To be able to deal with these questions, one
should be acquainted with the basic concepts of logical reasoning.
BASIC CONCEPT: ARGUMENT
An argument is an expression / a set of expressions through which the author tries to present, to the
reader, an idea/opinion/claim/suggestion, based on certain supporting reasons. A 'syllogism' is a set
of statements together. The argument is also called a prompt or stimulus.
In an argument, we use information or prior understanding as a basis. We put the basic elements
together and from this composite, we arrive at something that we understand.
BASIC CONCEPT: CONCLUSION
The main idea/opinion/claim/suggestion that the author is trying to present to the reader, on the
basis of supporting reasons is called the conclusion of the argument.
BASIC CONCEPT: PREMISE/S
The supporting reason/s that the author provides and has used as basis for the argument is/are called
premise/s.
Example Cricketer X has performed disastrously in the last World Cup. He has scored single digit
runs in every match since then. This shows that he has consistently failed to perform. Hence he
should be removed from the team.
The above passage is an argument as we can clearly see that the author finally wants us to believe
that the cricketer X should be removed from the team and he supports this by providing relevant
reasons. Hence, the conclusion of the argument is: Cricketer X should be removed.
The premises are:
a. Cricketer X has performed disastrously in the World Cup.
b. His scores have been single digit runs.
c. He has failed to perform consistently.
IMPORTANT NOTE: TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH ANY C.R. QUESTION CORRECTLY,
ONE SHOULD IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION AND THE PREMISES CORRECTLY.
For example, a student may now assume that the first sentence or the first few sentences of the
paragraph are the premise/s, and/or the last sentence of the paragraph is the conclusion, as is the
case in the example given above. Well, it need not be so. Remember, the paragraph is just the
physical representation of the argument WHICH IS A THOUGHT PROCESS. The argument above
can also be presented as follows:
I think Cricketer X should be removed from the team as he has consistently failed to perform. Take
for instance his World Cup performance which was disastrous or the matches later, in which he
scored single digit RUNS.

Well, the conclusion of the argument is mentioned as the first sentence of the paragraph. And, the
premises follow.
Now, look at this:
Well, Cricketer X has consistently failed to perform and so I think he should be removed from the
team. Take his World Cup performance for instance-- it was disastrous. Or the matches he played
after thathe scored single digit runs.
The conclusion in the above argument follows the first premise. The other premises follow the
conclusion. Hence, one should be careful in identifying the conclusions and premises.
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION:
As we have seen above, identifying the conclusion of the argument should be the first step. There
may, sometimes, be indicatorswords that indicate that what follows is a conclusion. Consider this:
Cricketer X has consistently failed to perform, therefore, he should be removed form the team. In
the above argument the author said, Therefore, he should be removed from the team. Here,
'therefore clearly indicates that he should be removed is the conclusion of the argument. Other
conclusion indicators arehence, thus, clearly, in conclusion, finally, that is why, for this reason, it
follows that, then, etc.
However, you may not always be so lucky. Then what will you do? Dont worry, you simply ask the
author What he is trying to tell you finally. The answer to that question is the conclusion.
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE PREMISES:
You may have premise indicatorswords that indicate that what follows is a premise. Look at the
following:
Because Cricketer X has consistently failed to perform, he should be removed from the team. In the
example above, the word because clearly indicates that Cricketer X has consistently failed to
perform is a premise. Hence, words like because, as, since, due to, on the basis of , based on the
fact that, etc. are premise indicators.
Again, if there aren't such indicators, ask (after first identifying the conclusion) what the author's
basis for the conclusion is, or how he can say that, or why he says that. The answers to these
questions are premises.
BASIC CONCEPT: ASSUMPTION
We already know what a premise isa reason the author presents in the argument in support of his
conclusion. Well, what if the author takes the support of a reason but doesnt mention it? Is that
possible?
Lets see...
Consider the following argument:
Ram is a member of the ABC Club, hence he must be a student of Sainik School Satara.
In the above argument, the conclusion is clearlyRam must be a student of Sainik School Satara.
And the premise isRam is a member of ABC Club. However, if we carefully observe, we notice

that the premise provided by the author by itself is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion.
Something is missing. There is an idea that the author took support of but did not mention in the
argument.
Look at the following...
Ram is a member of the ABC Club. All the members of ABC Club are students of Sainik School
Satara. Hence, he must be a student of Sainik School Satara.
Now the argument is complete. We clearly see that the idea that the author took support of but did
not mention is All the members of ABC Club are students of Sainik School Satara.
This idea that an author takes support of along with the stated premises, but doesnt mention is
called an Assumption. The author is said to have assumed it.
This is very critical to the argument even if absent in it. Therefore, the identification of an
assumption is sometimes difficult. To identify an assumption in the argument, simply look at the
conclusion and the premises and identify those elements that are not directly related. The links
between these elements would be assumptions.
BASIC CONCEPT VALID ARGUMENT
An argument that is acceptable, rational, sensible or logical is said to be a Valid argument.
EXAMPLE:
Cricketer X has performed disastrously in the last World Cup. Since then, in almost all the matches,
his scores have been single digits. This shows that he has consistently failed to perform. Therefore,
he should be removed from the team.
The above is a valid argument as it is acceptable to say that. If the given reasons are indeed true
then the player must be removed from the team.
BASIC CONCEPT INVALID ARGUMENT
What makes an argument invalid? A characteristic that is illogical/nonsensical. For example, the
irrelevance of the supporting reasons would render an argument invalid. This illogicality, or
absurdity in an argument that makes it invalid is called a Flaw or fallacy. A study of common flaws
helps us in developing our reasoning skills.
BASIC CONCEPT: CONCLUSION vs INFERENCE
The dictionary defines inference as the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from an
argument. This means, based on the given information in the argument, if we logically draw an idea,
we have an inference. Thus a conclusion is actually an inference. The distinction is that The
conclusion of an argument is that understanding that the argument is constructed for and directed
towards, whereas an Inference is other understanding (bits of understanding) that can be arrived at
from the same premises, but are not the main or central understanding derived. It is also called the
spin off (tangential or peripheral)

Conditions for Inferences:

1) Definitely and not probably true.
2) General Knowledge based but not personal feelings.
3) Multiple interpretations are allowed. (eg. Ram kills only if he has only his only gun. This
means that he has 1 gun and he does not indulge in other means of killing).
Look at another simple example below:
Stimulus/ argument: J K Rowling has written the 7th Harry Potter book. It is going to be a
bestseller.
Question Stem: Which of the following, when added, would complete the logic of the argument?
Answer Choices:
1. J K Rowling is an immensely popular author.
2. Harry Potter stories have gripped the imagination of readers the world over.
3. Her six earlier books in the series have all been bestsellers.
4. The seventh book in any series is usually a best seller.
The word logic is used in the sense of when one or more true statements lead to a belief that can
be considered representative of the truth. In the example above, choice 3 is the assumption that
would complete the argument. It can be said that it is actually the very basis for the conclusion that
the book would be a best seller.
Some more examples:
1.
Tendulkar is not playing well. In the last fifty matches, he has scored single digit runs.
(Premises). Hence he should be removed from the team. (Conclusion).
Assumption Anyone in the team who is not playing well must be removed.
2.
Killing an innocent person is wrong. (Premise). So abortion is wrong. (Conclusion).
Assumption Every abortion involves killing an innocent person.
3.
Talking on the cell phone is not wrong. (Conclusion). The reason is everyone is doing it.
(Premise)
Assumption Everyone is doing it. So it is not wrong.
4.
Ram Gopal Verma is making a new film with Amitabh Bacchan as the leading actor
(Premise). Hence it will be a great hit. (Conclusion)
Assumption All previous films made by the combination of Ram Gopal Verma and Amitabh
Bacchan have been great hits
Inference The film will be released on a national holiday or when children have a holiday.
5.
It is cloudy today. (Premise). Hence I will go out with an umbrella. (Conclusion)
Assumption Clouds cause rain and an umbrella protects against rain.
Inference The umbrella will be useful. It will not get blown by wind currents. Or The wind
velocity of the place might not be high so as to blow the umbrella away.
Some incorrect understandings:
1)
R is a member of ABC Club. R is a student of St. Mary's club. All members of ABC Club
should be students of St. Mary's (Incorrect).
2)
There were 10 friends of Shyam who go to Shyam's house one evening. Ram went to
Shyam's house yesterday at 4 pm. Mostly only Ram went. (No logic.......)
To put the concept of Assumption and Inference mathematically:
If A, B, C, D are premises in an argument,
1)
A = B, C = D...........................Therefore given that A = D.(Conclusion)
B = C is the assumption if it is given that A = D
2)
A = B, C = D...........................Therefore given that A = D.(Conclusion)
It is not explicitly given that A = C or B = D. But we can infer this.A = C, B = D are inferences.

CR Questions often test your recognition of the significance of quantifiers and qualifiers.
The words used in a conclusion should be considered with care, so that the statement is clearly
understood. It may contain quantifiers (such as all, every, none, most, some, few, a few, always,
never etc.). These words often enable you to evaluate whether the conclusion is representative of the
truth (or not).
It may contain qualifiers (such as all rivers that flow from west to east, no other coalition
governmentetc). Such terms enable you to determine the limited truth of the conclusion.
BASIC CONCEPT: LOGICAL FLAW
eg. 1) All parrots have wings. P is a parrot. Therefore P has wings. (Correct).
But can we say that P can fly. (Not definitely true).
eg. 2) What would be the interpretation for My neighbour's second wife is beautiful.
eg. 3) Tendulkar must be removed from the team because his family gets neglected whenever he
goes on tours and his wife has got fed up with cricket. (No logic here).
eg. 4) If you want to become rich, buy a parker pen. The reasons for this statement being incorrect
are:
a) Richness led to the buying of a parker pen (and not viceversa as shown above). So there is a mix
up or reversal of cause and effect).
b) Is parker pen an indicator of richness? No.
c) Can you guarantee that the person is rich? No. (The pen could be borrowed from someone or
stolen).
There are 264 fallacies available on the internet.
The usual features of flawed or illogical arguments are one or more of:
Irrelevant or wrong causes where the argument puts together pieces of information that are not
relevant, or not related, or are wrongly interpreted.
Correlation-Causation X and Y may take place simultaneously (both are correlated) but this
does not mean that X causes Y. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that another factor Z
could have caused X or the reverse causation can be true, Y causes X. Correlation does not
imply causation. eg. My sister sneezed and I failed the interview.
Wrong comparisons or analogies where the argument is built on the comparison of features that
logically cannot be compared i.e. not comparing two similar things or using the wrong metric
for measurement or using the wrong base for calculations. Eg. It is safer to fly a plane than to
drive a motor-bike since there are fewer airplane accidents than motor-bike accidents.
After this therefore because of this (Post Ergo Propter Hoc) This fallacy lies in concluding that
since Y happened after X, X has caused Y. Assigning causation without any evidence other than
the temporal sequence of events. Eg. 1) If you wash your car, it will rain - so washing your car
causes rain. Eg. 2) Every month on the full moon, the number of crazy people in hospital
emergency rooms goes up. And there are more arrests for fights. There must be a connection
there. It must be the increased gravity of the moon or the bright light that makes people loony.
Hasty Generalizations without adequate basis (also known as sweeping statements) where a
large conclusion is based on very scanty evidence or data. Eg. 1. My father smoked all his life
and never suffered from a single stroke or lung disease, so smoking is not as injurious as it is
made out to be. Eg. 2. Nissans are terribly unreliable - I once owned a Nissan that broke down
on me. Eg. 3. I find fountain pens very useful. Therefore it should be given to students during
exams.
Ambiguity in the statements where the contextual meaning of certain words or phrases in the
statements is not clear or certain.
Circular arguments or Begging the question where a premise presented is nothing but the

writers viewpoint (conclusion) restated in different words i.e. the argument uses the conclusion
to prove itself. This is a common strategy when the person making the claim has no real
evidence to support his case beyond "this is true because it can't be false." Eg. Democracy
(government elected by a majority vote) is the best form of government since a majority of
people across the world have voted for democracy as their favored form of governance.
Additional Information This fallacy is similar to Catch-22, a paradoxical situation in which
an individual cannot avoid a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules. The term
formulated by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch 22, involves the case of John Yossarian, a
U.S. Army Air Forces bombardier, who wishes to be grounded from combat flight. This will
only happen if he is evaluated by the squadron's flight surgeon and found "unfit to fly."
"Unfit" would be any pilot who is willing to fly such dangerous missions, as one would have
to be mad to volunteer for possible death. However, to be evaluated, he must request the
evaluation, an act that is considered sufficient proof for being declared sane. These
conditions make it impossible to be declared "unfit." The "Catch-22" is that "anyone who
wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy." Hence, pilots who request a mental
fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an
evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one and can never be found
insane, meaning he must also fly in combat. Catch-22 ensures that no pilot can ever be
grounded for being insane even if he is.
Red Herring or Misdirected evaluation The goal is to redirect the discussion or confuse the
issues by introducing a diversionary topic that is not relevant to the debate. This allows the debater
to escape to new ground when he has run out of legitimate ammunition to defend his position on the
original topic. The fallacy's name refers to the practice of dragging dead animals (including smelly
fish) across the trail of a fox to redirect the foxhounds that are following the trail to lead them away
from the fox. Such arguments are used as options usually in strengthening or weakening questions.
The question paper setter knows your mis-interpretation and will frame a choice to confuse you. An
example is given below to explain this fallacy.
Dr. Pablo: I'm not sure the test results that have been released are the actual results from the
tests that were conducted. I have an indication that the real results may have been suppressed
by a group of individuals associated with the Church of Scientology. How they got control of
the test results is uncertain. They may have secretly had members in the team that conducted
the tests. There are many people who do not want the truth about the genetic link between
humans and Neanderthals disclosed. I think you can imagine why. I am continuing to try to
locate the real results. I ask that you and your colleagues in the press follow my lead. If there
is a conspiracy to suppress the truth here, you need to follow it wherever it leads.
NB: The classic red herring in these situations is the conspiracy theory. Anytime things don't
go as planned or hoped, then it must be because some secret, subversive group is working
behind the scenes with ulterior motives to take control of things. Conspiracies are perfect
diversions, because no matter how hard you look or how often you fail to find evidence to
disprove the conspiracy, it will live forever. Finding no evidence of a conspiracy in the mind
of believers only proves how deep the conspiracy goes and how deep its cover. In the
meantime, everyone has forgotten about the original story. In this case - do modern humans
and Neanderthals share any DNA?
Attack on the Arguer rather than the Argument (Ad Hominem) - The Latin translates "to the
man" and refers to the strategy of attacking the person rather than attacking the idea he
presents. Rather than debate the original argument on its merits, the opponent makes an attack
upon some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the theory or claim. Eg. His demands for
raising the taxes do not make any economic sense, anyways he himself lives in a luxury house.
Choices that negate premises One should remember that the premises in an argument give us
useful facts. One cannot question the premises.

BASIC CONCEPT: PARADOX OR CONTRADICTION (2 opposing situations present

together)
eg.1) There was a bumper crop of potatoes. Still potato farmers committed suicide.
Reason The price of potatoes fell and farmers were not able to recover the cost.
eg. 2) Indian railways reported an increase in the number of passengers travelling by train. Other
costs like infrastructure, staffing etc. Remained the same. Yet there was no increase in revenue.
Reason People travelled shorter distances.
BASIC CONCEPT: PARALLEL REASONING Same line of reasoning (the logical journey
that the author takes from premises to conclusion). The conditions for parallel reasoning:
a) Same number of premises
b) Same logic
c) Same validity
Tendulkar is not playing well. In the last fifty matches, he has scored single digit runs. (Premises).
Hence he should be removed from the team. (Conclusion).
A similar or parallel reasoning would be:
Ram has not been studying hard. He has scored single digit marks in all tests of the annual exams.
Therefore he should be removed from the school.
BASIC CONCEPT: HOW TO WEAKEN THE ARGUMENT
One of the most common type of Logical Reasoning questions by far is the weaken-the-argument
question. To weaken the argument, we have to identify that option that makes the argument less
convincing. This would be the identification of a circumstance, outside the argument, that would
render the conclusion questionable.
BASIC CONCEPT: HOW TO STRENGTHEN THE ARGUMENT
This is the opposite of weaken the argument question. In this we have to identify that idea which
further justifies the argument, and makes it more convincing. Hence, if we identify other
circumstances outside the argument that also justify the conclusion, we would strengthen the
argument.
If A, B, C, D are premises in an argument,
3)
A = B, C = D...........................Therefore given that A = D.(Conclusion)
B = C is the assumption if it is given that A = D.
If one can strengthen B = C (Assumption), one will be able to strengthen the conclusion/argument.
If one can weaken B = C (Assumption), one will be able to weaken the conclusion/argument.
The types of Critical Reasoning Questions are as follows:
(A) Construction/ Structure: (Question types like Conclusion, Assumption, Inference,
Paradox or Contradiction, Logical Flaw, Summary of paragraph, Mark the statement as
true or false, Point out the reason or premise).
(B) Evaluation/ Formulation of a Plan : (Question types like Strengthening Argument,
Weakening Argument, Logical Continuation or Paragraph Completion or Last sentence
missing, Similar Reasoning or Parallel Reasoning).

How to eliminate wrong options in Critical Reasoning:

The wrong options usually fall into the following categories.
1) Opposite: An option which does exactly opposite of what is asked is an opposite option.
For example, an option which weakens the argument instead of strengthening it.
2) Irrelevant: An option which talks about something not relevant to the question.
3) Off-track: This is an option which is related but does not hit the bulls-eye of the argument.
It can also be called as a wayward argument.
4) Beyond scope: This is an option which talks of something which appears beyond the scope
of the passage. Generally, there is extra data in this choice.
5) Funny: There are some options which are unduly funny.for e.g. The paragraph is
talking about cancerand the option addresses stomach aches!
6) Poetic: They are looking for a logical choice. So poetic choices can generally be ruled out.
7) Opinions without substance: Some options may be at the level of a belief or opinion but
might lack substance.
Well, this is the general overview of all the basic concepts.
GENERAL APPROACH TO ALL TYPES OF QUESTIONS:
Whatever the question type, one should
1. READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT CORRECTLY;
2. IDENTIFY THE CONCLUSION;
3. IDENTIFY THE PREMISE/S;
4. IDENTIFY THE ASSUMPTION, IF ANY, AND
5. CHECK THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT.
To understand the argument correctly, you may use the paraphrasing method. In this method, you
simply simplify the argumentuse your own simple words to express the argument. Where the
author uses difficult words, you use simple words.
Let's take an example:
The theory of MADmutually assured destructionensures that two nuclear powered enemies
would not go to war. The fact that a nuclear war , if it occurs, will destroy both countries prevents
leaders from declaring war and forces them to maintain peace as in the cold war.
Now, this argument may look complicated at first.
Well, the argument is essentially defining a theoryMAD. It is primarily telling us that 'two
nuclear powered countries would not fight a war'...why? Because, if they fight, both will be
destroyed.
So, a simplified argument would look like...
Two nuclear countries would not fight a war because if they fight, they both will be destroyed.

LET US UNDERSTAND FEW CONCEPTS IN some difficult examples:

Question 1: The hourly wage of fresh college graduates is about 12$ less than that of regular
workers (Premise).
Hence shopkeepers feel that it is economical to hire fresh college graduates to conduct the stock
audits in their stores (Conclusion).
Assumption Fresh college graduates are capable of conducting stock audits.
Question 2: In a survey, the dining habits of about 100 adults were observed. It was found that
those who took alcohol just before lunch consumed less calories at lunch than those who did not
take alcohol (Premise).
This indicates that those who want to reduce their calorie intake should consume some alcohol
before lunch (Conclusion).
Assumption There is no other method other than pre-lunch consumption of alcohol that will
reduce people's calorie intake during lunch. OR Having alcohol before lunch is the only way of
consuming less calories at lunch.
Question 3: Baldness will soon be a thing of the past. (Conclusion)
The patent of Finastride, the drug that cures baldness in men, expires next month. (Premise)
Most companies can then manufacture the drug and the price will come down to be within the reach
of all those who are bald. (Premise).
Assumption Other companies would be capable of manufacturing the drug and will be in a
position to lower the price.
Verbal skills also have a role to play in dealing with Critical Reasoning. Correct interpretation
(vocabulary and sentence structure) would mean that the situation is clearly understood. If not
properly understood, errors would creep into the logical applications and the reasoning, as well.
Students should be asked to pay particular attention to qualifiers, comparisons, determiners and
tenses.
Providing these inputs may take about an hour and 15 minutes or so. The handout may then be
distributed. Students may be asked to read the explanatory input at home. In class, the questions
may be attempted, one at a time, and discussed in detail.