🗣️ Verbal

Critical Reasoning

Stem-first routine: find the conclusion, name the gap; a task playbook for strengthen, weaken, assumption, flaw, evaluate, explain, inference, boldface and plan.

~6h

to master

One routine, then the question families

Critical Reasoning gives a short argument (usually under 100 words) and one question. The official subtypes are Analysis, Construction, Critique, and Plan, but it's faster to work by the task the stem names. Either way, one routine comes first:

📐Core Rule

Always: read the stem, find the conclusion, name the gap — before the options.

Read the question stem first so you know the task. 2. Underline the conclusion (the claim the argument is for). 3. State the gap between the evidence and that conclusion in your own words. The right answer almost always operates on that gap.

The task playbook

Stem says…	Your job	The answer…
Strengthen	reinforce the gap	adds a fact that makes the conclusion more likely (often: rules out an alternative cause)
Weaken	widen the gap	introduces a fact that makes the conclusion less likely (an alternative cause, a broken link)
Assumption	name the unstated bridge	states what must be true; confirm by negation
Flaw	label the error	names the reasoning mistake (correlation→causation, sample, % vs #)
Evaluate	find the hinge	poses a question whose two answers swing the conclusion opposite ways
Explain / Resolve	reconcile a surprise	a fact that makes both puzzling observations consistent
Inference / "must be true"	stay inside the premises	the only choice the statements guarantee — usually the timid one
Boldface (Analysis)	identify roles	describes what each portion does (premise? conclusion? objection?)
Plan	judge fitness for a goal	tells what must hold for the plan to work, or what dooms it

✏️Worked Example

Weaken by alternative cause. Argument: "Town sales rose after the new ad campaign, so the campaign worked." The gap is causal. The best weakener isn't "the ads were ugly" — it's "a competitor's store closed the same week," supplying a different cause for the rise. See and .

Traps that catch strong readers

⚠️GMAT Trap

Strengthen/Weaken answers must hit this conclusion, not a neighbor. A choice that bolsters a related claim (a "scope shift") is the most common wrong answer — it feels on-topic but misses the argument's actual conclusion. Re-check the option against the exact conclusion you underlined.

⚠️GMAT Trap

Strengthen/Weaken is about probability, not proof. You're not asked to prove or destroy the conclusion — only to move it. The right answer often shifts the likelihood modestly; reject the instinct to demand a knockout.

💡Exam Tip

For "Evaluate" questions, the answer is a question, and the test is the variance test: imagine its two possible answers. If "yes" supports the argument and "no" undermines it, that's the hinge — pick it. If both answers leave the argument unchanged, it's irrelevant.

💡Exam Tip

For Assumption, negate the candidate. If the argument falls apart when the option is false, it's a necessary assumption. If the argument survives the negation, the option wasn't required — eliminate it.

Method, in order

Read the stem; classify the task.
Find and underline the conclusion.
State the gap (the assumption) in your own words.
Predict the answer's shape, then match — eliminating scope-shifts and out-of-scope facts.

Checklist

Stem read first; task named
Conclusion underlined (not just the last sentence)
Gap stated in your own words
Answer checked against that conclusion (no scope shift)
Assumption candidates tested by negation

Sample Questions

186 practice questions

Easy

Borough surveyor: When we re-roof the civic hall, we should use copper sheet rather than bitumen felt. Copper needs no periodic recoating, and the recoating that felt requires has to be done every few years at considerable expense.

Councillor: But copper sheet costs many times what bitumen felt costs, so your proposal is probably not justifiable on economic grounds.

Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the borough surveyor to support the proposal against the councillor's objection?

Easy

Researchers asked postdoctoral scientists to imagine applying for a grant against 30 rival applicants, and then against 300, where in each case the strongest tenth of the applications would be funded. Asked how much time they would spend drafting, the scientists said on average that they would spend less time on the application with the larger field. A likely explanation is that the scientists who were most comparison-minded - those most inclined to size themselves up against their peers - concluded, perhaps without noticing, that a long drafting effort was not worthwhile in the 300-applicant round.

Which of the following, if known to be true, would most help to justify the explanation offered above?

Create a free account to access all 186 practice questions on this topic.

Continue Your Prep

Flashcards →

Bite-size concept cards

Question Bank →

Every GMAT Focus question

Mock Test →

Full GMAT Focus simulation

Practice Critical Reasoning