GMAT Critical Reasoning: every question type with examples
Critical Reasoning questions give you a short argument and ask you to do one specific thing with its logic. Since the GMAT Focus Edition dropped Sentence Correction, Verbal Reasoning consists of Critical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension only, so steady CR accuracy matters more than it used to. The Verbal section has 23 questions in 45 minutes, just under two minutes per question on average, and Reading Comprehension passages take extra reading time. CR is where you can afford to be precise.
The good news is that CR is a small, closed world. There are about a dozen question types, each with a recognisable question stem, a standard method and a predictable trap. This guide covers every type with an original example question, all written for GMAT Drill. Try each one before opening the explanation.
One method for every argument
Before the question types, one routine that works for all of them:
- Read the question stem first. It tells you which job you are doing: weakening, finding an assumption, describing a role. That changes what you look for while reading.
- Find the conclusion. Look for signal words (therefore, so, clearly, concludes) or ask: what is the author trying to convince me of? Restate it in a few words.
- Find the evidence and the gap. Ask what the author takes for granted in moving from evidence to conclusion. Common gaps: a correlation treated as a cause, one group used to reach a conclusion about another, a measure (complaints, recorded cases) treated as the thing itself, a plan assumed to have no obstacles.
- Predict, then eliminate. Have a rough idea of the right answer before reading the choices. Then eliminate choices that are out of scope, too extreme, or aimed at the topic rather than the conclusion.
Most wrong answers fall into three families: out of scope (about the topic, not the conclusion), wrong direction (a strengthener offered on a weaken question, or the reverse) and too strong (a claim that goes further than the argument needs or supports). Name the family when you eliminate a choice; it makes your review much faster.
Weaken the argument
Stem: "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?"
Method: Find the gap, then look for a fact that shows the conclusion does not follow. Often that means an alternative explanation, or a sign that the evidence does not test what the author thinks it tests. The right answer does not have to disprove the conclusion. It only has to make it less likely.
Trap: choices that support the author's other claims, or that discuss the topic without touching the link between evidence and conclusion.
Example 1: Weaken Argument
Last spring, to reduce litter in Pallas Park, the city doubled the number of trash bins in the park. Over the following summer, park crews collected just as much litter from the park grounds as they had the previous summer, when attendance was about the same. A parks official concludes that making bins more convenient does not affect how much visitors litter and that only fines for littering will reduce the problem.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official's argument?
- AMost of the litter park crews collect consists of food wrappers and drink containers.
- BAll of the new bins were placed near the park's entrances, whereas most of the litter crews collect is found in the picnic meadows, which are a long walk from any bin.
- CFines for littering have reduced the amount of litter in parks in several other cities.
- DSome visitors to Pallas Park bring their own bags and take their trash home with them.
- EThe bins added last spring are of the same design as the bins that were already in the park.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Approach: The official infers that convenience does not matter because adding bins did not help. That inference fails if the new bins did not actually make disposal more convenient where people litter.
Solution:
- Step 1: (B) Correct. If the new bins went where little litter is dropped, they did not make disposal more convenient for the visitors who litter. The experiment never tested convenience, so its failure does not show convenience is irrelevant.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) The type of litter does not bear on whether convenient bins would reduce it. (C) That fines work elsewhere is consistent with, and even supports, the official's proposal; it does not show bins cannot work. (D) Some visitors taking their trash home would be true in both summers and gives no reason to doubt the official's inference about bins. (E) Identical bin design does not help explain why doubling the bins failed, and so does not weaken the argument.
Answer: B
Common trap: C is tempting because it concerns the official's proposed remedy, but evidence that fines work elsewhere supports the official rather than undermining the claim that bins do not help.
Strengthen the argument
Stem: "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?" or "provides the most support for the conclusion?"
Method: Close the gap. For causal arguments, the strongest support usually rules out a rival cause, removes the cause and shows the effect disappearing, or shows that the cause came first.
Trap: choices that sound related but point the other way, such as a reversed causal direction, which weakens rather than strengthens.
Example 2: Strengthen Argument
Biologists studying red foxes in the city of Kellby found that foxes in the city's eastern neighborhoods will approach within three meters of a person, whereas foxes in the western neighborhoods run off when a person comes within twenty meters. Surveys show that residents of the eastern neighborhoods are far more likely than western residents to leave food out for foxes. The biologists conclude that being fed by residents has made the eastern foxes bolder.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the biologists' conclusion?
- AIn one eastern neighborhood where residents stopped leaving out food three years ago, the foxes now run off from people at distances similar to those seen in the western neighborhoods.
- BFoxes in both parts of Kellby get nearly all of their food by hunting rodents and insects rather than from food left out by residents.
- CThe eastern neighborhoods contain more parks than the western ones, so foxes there encounter people far more often.
- DResidents of the western neighborhoods are much more likely than eastern residents to own dogs that chase foxes.
- EMany eastern residents began leaving out food only after foxes had become bold enough to come up to their houses.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
Approach: The argument infers causation (feeding causes boldness) from a correlation between two groups of neighborhoods. A strengthener shows that removing the supposed cause removes the effect, or rules out rival causes.
Solution:
- Step 1: (A) Correct. When feeding stopped in an eastern neighborhood, the foxes there became as wary as western foxes. Changing only the supposed cause changed the effect, which is strong evidence of causation.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (B) If foxes get almost none of their food from residents, feeding is unlikely to shape their behavior; this weakens the conclusion. (C) More frequent contact with people is a rival explanation for the boldness (habituation), so this weakens the conclusion. (D) Dogs that chase foxes offer another reason western foxes would be wary, a rival explanation that weakens the conclusion. (E) This suggests the causation runs the other way: boldness led to feeding, not feeding to boldness. It weakens the conclusion.
Answer: A
Common trap: E is tempting because it links feeding and boldness in the eastern neighborhoods, but it puts the boldness first, reversing the causal direction the biologists claim.
Find the assumption
Stem: "The argument assumes which of the following?" or "depends on which of the following assumptions?"
Method: An assumption is an unstated premise the argument needs. Use the negation test: negate the choice, and if the argument falls apart, it is the assumption. Required assumptions are often modest and sound obvious once stated.
Trap: choices that would help the argument but are not required by it, and choices about feasibility or cost when the conclusion is only a prediction.
Example 3: Assumptions
Director of the Eastgate branch library: Our branch closes at 6 p.m. on weekdays, and many residents who work during the day cannot get here before then. If we extend our weekday hours until 9 p.m., the number of residents who use the branch will increase significantly. We should therefore adopt the later closing time as soon as the change can be arranged.
The director's argument assumes which of the following?
- AThe cost of the longer hours can be covered by the branch's current budget.
- BMost residents who now use the branch would prefer to visit in the evening.
- CA significant number of working residents who cannot now use the branch would visit between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. if it were open.
- DOther branch libraries in the city are open until 9 p.m. on weekdays.
- EResidents who do not work during the day visit the library more often than those who do.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: C
Approach: The director moves from "working residents can't come before 6" to "later hours will significantly increase use." That step requires that those residents would actually come in the evening.
Solution:
- Step 1: (C) Correct. Negate it: if few working residents would come in the evening, usage will not rise significantly.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) The budget matters to whether the plan is feasible, but the argument's prediction is about usage, and usage does not depend on cost. (B) Current users' preferences are not needed. The argument is about new users. (D) What other branches do is irrelevant. (E) Comparative visit rates are not needed for the prediction.
Answer: C
Common trap: A is tempting because a later closing time costs money, but the argument's key prediction is about usage, which does not depend on the budget.
Evaluate the argument
Stem: "Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the argument?"
Method: The right answer is a question whose answer would cut both ways: one answer strengthens the argument, the other weakens it. Test each choice by imagining a yes and a no. If neither answer would change your view of the conclusion, eliminate it.
Trap: questions that relate to the proposal or the topic but not to the specific claim being made.
Example 4: Evaluate an Argument
Over the past decade, the annual cod catch in Marrow Bay has fallen by half. Regulators blame overfishing and propose halving the number of fishing permits issued for the bay. A marine biologist disagrees. She argues that rising water temperatures have driven the cod out of the bay toward cooler waters to the north, and that cutting permits will therefore do nothing to restore the bay's cod catch.
Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the biologist's argument?
- AWhether the market price of cod in the region has risen over the past decade
- BWhether most commercial fishers in Marrow Bay support the proposed reduction in permits
- CWhether cod caught in Marrow Bay are sold mainly to local buyers or to exporters
- DWhether halving the number of permits would also reduce the catch of species other than cod
- EWhether the abundance of cod in the cooler waters immediately north of Marrow Bay has increased over the past decade
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: E
Approach: The biologist's argument depends on the cod having relocated rather than been depleted. We need a fact whose answer confirms or undermines that relocation.
Solution:
- Step 1: (E) Correct. If cod have become more abundant just to the north, relocation is supported and the biologist's case strengthens. If not, the migration explanation weakens and overfishing becomes more plausible.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) Cod prices do not show whether the fish were depleted or moved away. (B) Whether fishers support the proposal says nothing about what caused the decline. (C) Where the catch is sold does not bear on why it fell. (D) Effects on other species do not affect the claim that the permit cut will not restore cod.
Answer: E
Common trap: D mentions the permit cut and so seems relevant, but the biologist's claim is only about restoring cod, so effects on other species cannot test it.
Inference (must be true)
Stem: "If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?" or "most strongly supported by the information above?"
Method: There is no argument to attack here. You are given facts, and the right answer follows from them with little or no extra assumption. Chain conditional statements ("every A is B; every B is C") and watch for exclusive categories. Be suspicious of answers that are merely likely.
Trap: reversing a conditional. "Every manager at the firm has an MBA" does not mean "every MBA at the firm is a manager".
Example 5: Inference
Every specimen in the Halden Museum's meteorite collection is classified as exactly one of the following: stony, iron, or stony-iron. Every specimen in the collection that contains chondrules, small rounded grains of once-molten rock, is classified as stony. All of the collection's specimens that were recovered in Antarctica contain chondrules. The collection includes at least one stony-iron specimen, which is currently on display in the museum's main hall.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true?
- AEvery stony specimen in the Halden Museum's collection contains chondrules.
- BAt least one specimen recovered in Antarctica is on display in the museum's main hall.
- CAt least one of the collection's iron specimens was recovered in Antarctica.
- DMost of the collection's stony specimens were recovered in Antarctica.
- ENone of the collection's stony-iron specimens was recovered in Antarctica.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: E
Approach: Chain the conditional statements: recovered in Antarctica, therefore contains chondrules, therefore stony. Since each specimen has exactly one classification, a stony specimen cannot be stony-iron.
Solution:
- Step 1: (E) Correct. Any Antarctic specimen contains chondrules and so is stony; because classifications are exclusive, it cannot be stony-iron. So no stony-iron specimen came from Antarctica.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) This reverses the conditional. Chondrules guarantee a stony classification, but a stony specimen need not contain chondrules. (B) Nothing is said about which Antarctic specimens, if any, are on display; the only displayed specimen mentioned is stony-iron. (C) This cannot be true: every Antarctic specimen contains chondrules and is therefore stony, so no iron specimen can have come from Antarctica. (D) The passage gives no numbers, so it cannot tell us what share of stony specimens came from Antarctica.
Answer: E
Common trap: A is tempting because it reverses a rule the passage states ('chondrules means stony'), but the reverse ('stony means chondrules') is never given.
Resolve a paradox
Stem: "Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?" or "explain the surprising result?"
Method: State the conflict in one line: X should cause Y, but the opposite happened. The right answer shows how both facts can be true at once. A common resolution is that the measured figure changed for a reason other than the real one, such as better detection or a different base.
Trap: choices that make the conflict more puzzling, and comparisons with other places or groups that do not explain this one.
Example 6: Resolve a Paradox
Two years ago Merriton General Hospital launched a hand-hygiene program for its clinical staff. Observers recorded that the share of patient contacts preceded by proper handwashing rose from 40 percent to 85 percent. Hand hygiene is one of the most effective known ways to prevent infections acquired in hospitals. Yet over the same two years, the number of hospital-acquired infections recorded at Merriton rose.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?
- AThe observers who measured handwashing visited wards without advance notice.
- BSeveral other hospitals in the region have launched similar hand-hygiene programs.
- CWhen the program began, Merriton also adopted a new laboratory screening procedure that identifies many infections that previously went undetected and unrecorded.
- DHospitals in the region that did not adopt hand-hygiene programs saw their recorded infection rates stay about the same.
- EThe number of patients admitted to Merriton declined slightly over the two years.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: C
Approach: Better hygiene should lower infections, yet the recorded count rose. A resolution can show that the recorded number rose even though actual infections did not.
Solution:
- Step 1: (C) Correct. Better detection can raise recorded infections even while actual infections fall, which removes the conflict.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) Unannounced visits make the compliance figures more trustworthy, which deepens the puzzle. (B) What other hospitals did does not explain Merriton's own numbers. (D) Stable rates elsewhere make Merriton's rise even more puzzling. (E) Fewer patients should mean fewer infections, which deepens the puzzle.
Answer: C
Common trap: D looks like useful comparative data, but it makes Merriton's rise stranger rather than explaining it.
Identify the flaw
Stem: "The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it..." or "Which of the following describes a flaw?"
Method: This is the gap, described in abstract terms. Find the gap in your own words first, then find the choice that describes it. Classic flaws: confusing correlation with causation, treating a sample as representative when it is not, treating an indicator as the thing it indicates, and assuming that what is true of a group is true of each member.
Trap: textbook flaws that do not apply to this argument. A choice can name a real flaw type and still describe something the argument never did.
Example 7: Logical Flaw
Historian: Of the thousands of surviving letters written by merchants in the port of Silvena during the 1600s, a large share complain about pirates, while surviving letters written by merchants in the nearby port of Carrow during the same period rarely mention pirates at all. Clearly, then, pirates attacked ships belonging to Silvena's merchants far more often than they attacked ships belonging to Carrow's merchants.
The historian's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- Atakes for granted that how often merchants wrote about pirates reflects how often pirates attacked the merchants' ships
- Bassumes that the pirates who attacked Silvena's ships were the same pirates who operated near Carrow
- Cconcludes that pirate attacks caused Silvena's economic decline without offering evidence of any such decline
- Ddraws a general conclusion about the merchants of two ports from the letters of only a handful of merchants
- Epresumes that because pirates were active in the 1600s, they must also have been active in later centuries
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
Approach: The evidence is about what merchants wrote; the conclusion is about what actually happened. The argument leaps from frequency of complaints to frequency of attacks without ruling out other reasons the two ports' letters differ (for example, Silvena's merchants writing to officials to seek naval protection).
Solution:
- Step 1: (A) Correct. This names the gap exactly: complaint frequency could differ for reasons unrelated to attack frequency, yet the historian treats one as a measure of the other.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (B) The argument makes no claim about the identity of the pirates, so it does not rely on this assumption. (C) The historian draws no conclusion about economic decline; this describes an argument that was not made. (D) The passage refers to thousands of surviving letters, so the charge of relying on a handful of merchants is inaccurate. (E) The argument says nothing about later centuries.
Answer: A
Common trap: D is tempting because unrepresentative samples are a common flaw, but the passage specifies thousands of letters; the real problem is equating complaints with attacks.
Boldface (role of a statement)
Stem: "In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?"
Method: Before reading the choices, label the main conclusion of the whole argument and then each boldface: is it the conclusion, evidence for it, a claim the argument rejects, evidence for that rejected claim, or background? Then match your labels to the choices, one half at a time. Eliminate on the first half, then on the second.
Trap: confusing "the argument disputes this fact" with "the argument disputes the conclusion someone drew from this fact". Arguments often accept an observation and challenge its explanation.
Example 8: Bold Face CR
Solar-panel installations on homes in Kordia rose sharply after the government began offering tax rebates for them. Some policymakers conclude that ending the rebates would cause installations to drop back to their earlier level. That conclusion is premature. During the same period, the price of solar panels fell by more than half, which by itself could account for much of the increase. Moreover, installers now offer financing plans that did not exist before. Installations may well remain high even if the rebates end.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
- AThe first is an observation that has been used to support a conclusion the argument calls into question; the second supports an alternative explanation of that observation.
- BThe first is a conclusion that the argument rejects; the second is evidence offered against that conclusion.
- CThe first is the main conclusion of the argument; the second is evidence offered in support of that conclusion.
- DThe first is an observation that has been used to support a conclusion the argument calls into question; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
- EThe first is an observation whose accuracy the argument disputes; the second supports the argument's main conclusion.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
Approach: The policymakers infer from the first boldface that the rebates drove the rise. The argument accepts the rise as fact but offers other causes, the price drop (second boldface) and financing, to conclude that installations may stay high.
Solution:
- Step 1: (A) Correct. The first is the accepted fact behind the policymakers' conclusion, and the second is part of the rival explanation for it.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (B) The first is a fact, not a conclusion. The conclusion the argument rejects is the policymakers' prediction. (C) The main conclusion is that installations may stay high without rebates, not the first boldface. (D) The second boldface is evidence. The main conclusion is the final sentence. (E) The argument never disputes that installations rose. It disputes why.
Answer: A
Common trap: E is tempting because the argument opposes the policymakers, but it accepts the first boldface as true and only challenges the explanation drawn from it.
Complete the passage
Stem: An argument ends with a blank, usually after since or because, and asks which choice "most logically completes the argument".
Method: Read what the blank must support. If it follows since, the blank is evidence for the claim just before it, so find the claim and make it exact. "Will not increase sales" and "will reduce sales" need different evidence.
Trap: choices that support a weaker version of the claim than the one in the passage.
Example 9: Complete the Passage
Some publishers of novels have found that letting readers download the first chapter of a book free increases sales, because readers who enjoy the opening want to find out what happens next. Kestrel Press, which publishes birdwatching field guides, is considering the same practice for its books. However, the practice is likely to reduce rather than increase Kestrel's sales, since ______
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
- Afield guides are usually consulted one entry at a time rather than read from beginning to end
- Bthe first chapter of each Kestrel guide is a quick-identification chart, which for most buyers is the only part they ever use
- CKestrel's field guides sell for considerably higher prices than most novels do
- Dsome publishers of novels have stopped offering free chapters because the practice turned out to be costly to administer
- Emost people who buy birdwatching field guides have bought guides published by Kestrel before
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Approach: The blank must support a strong claim: the free chapter will actually lower sales, not just fail to raise them. So the completion must show that giving away the first chapter gives away the reason people buy the book.
Solution:
- Step 1: (B) Correct. If the first chapter is the part most buyers want, a free copy of it satisfies many would-be buyers, who then have no reason to purchase the book. That explains a drop in sales.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) This explains why the novel strategy might not help a field guide (there is no suspense to resolve), but it does not show sales would fall. (C) A higher price does not explain why a free chapter would reduce sales; if anything, a sample might reassure buyers before a pricier purchase. (D) Administrative costs affect profits, not the number of books Kestrel sells. (E) Buyers' familiarity with Kestrel gives no reason why a free chapter would reduce their purchases.
Answer: B
Common trap: A is tempting because it shows the novel logic does not carry over, but it only suggests the free chapter would not help; the argument needs a reason it would hurt.
Method of reasoning
Stem: "Councillor Brandt responds to Councillor Ames by..." or "The argument proceeds by..."
Method: Describe what the speaker does, not what they say. Do they deny a premise, offer a counterexample, accept the conclusion but reject the reason, or point to an alternative cause? Put that in your own words before reading the choices, which are written in abstract language.
Trap: choices that overstate the response. A speaker who rejects one reason for a proposal is not rejecting the proposal.
Example 10: Method of Reasoning
Councillor Ames: The city should ban gas-powered leaf blowers. The noise they make disturbs residents in entire neighborhoods.
Councillor Brandt: Gas blowers are louder than electric ones at close range, but at the distance of a neighbor's window the difference is barely measurable, and your ban would leave electric blowers untouched. There may well be good reasons to ban gas blowers, such as their exhaust, but noise is not one of them.
Councillor Brandt responds to Councillor Ames by
- Adenying that the noise from leaf blowers disturbs residents
- Bgranting that Ames's proposal might be warranted while contending that the reason Ames gives for it does not support it
- Carguing that the proposal would impose costs on residents that outweigh its benefits
- Doffering evidence that electric leaf blowers harm the environment as much as gas-powered ones do
- Eclaiming that Ames's proposal would make worse the very problem it is intended to solve
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Approach: Brandt does not oppose the ban. He says there may be good reasons for it, but argues that noise is not one, because the ban would barely change what neighbors hear.
Solution:
- Step 1: (B) Correct. Brandt allows that the ban may be justified (for example, by exhaust) but rejects noise as its justification.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) Brandt accepts that blowers are noisy. He argues only that gas and electric blowers sound much the same from a neighbor's window. (C) Brandt says nothing about costs to residents. (D) Brandt mentions gas exhaust as a possible reason to ban them. He makes no claim that electric blowers are equally harmful to the environment. (E) Brandt says the ban would not help with noise, not that it would make noise worse.
Answer: B
Common trap: A is tempting because Brandt disputes the noise rationale, but he disputes the difference between gas and electric blowers, not the claim that blowers disturb residents.
Main conclusion
Stem: "Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?"
Method: Find the claim every other sentence supports. Signal words help, but be careful: in many GMAT arguments, the first sentence is a view the author goes on to reject, and the conclusion comes near the end. Check your pick by asking "why?": the rest of the argument should answer it.
Trap: choices that go further than the author does. Showing that evidence for a claim is weak is not the same as showing the claim is false.
Example 11: Conclusion
It is widely believed that the plague that struck the city of Marlowe in 1411 began among the dockworkers, because the earliest recorded deaths from the disease occurred at the docks. But in 1411 harbor officials were required to register every death among dockworkers, whereas deaths in the rest of the city were recorded only occasionally. The prominence of the docks in the early records therefore tells us little about where in Marlowe the plague actually began.
Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
- AThe plague that struck Marlowe in 1411 began somewhere other than the docks.
- BIn 1411, harbor officials in Marlowe kept more complete records of deaths than other officials did.
- CMost deaths in Marlowe in 1411 were never recorded.
- DThe fact that the earliest recorded plague deaths occurred at the docks is weak evidence that the plague began there.
- EHistorians should not rely on harbor records when studying Marlowe's history.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Approach: The argument's final sentence ('therefore...') states the conclusion: the dock records tell us little about where the plague began. The recording-rules sentence is the premise that supports it.
Solution:
- Step 1: (D) Correct. This restates the final sentence: the early dock deaths are poor evidence of the plague's origin, because dock deaths were far more likely to be recorded.
- Step 2: Eliminate the others: (A) The argument says only that the evidence is weak; it does not claim the plague began elsewhere. The docks may still have been the origin. (B) This is essentially a premise offered in support of the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. (C) The argument says deaths elsewhere were recorded only occasionally; it does not say most deaths overall went unrecorded, and this is not the point being argued for. (E) This is far broader than the argument, which concerns only what the records show about where the plague began.
Answer: D
Common trap: A is tempting because the argument casts doubt on the docks theory, but undermining the evidence for a claim is not the same as showing the claim is false.
Timing and practice
With just under two minutes per Verbal question on average, and Reading Comprehension passages needing extra reading time, aim to finish most CR questions in about two minutes. If you have read the argument twice and still cannot state the conclusion, pick the best remaining choice and move on; the time is better spent elsewhere. On the GMAT Focus Edition, you can bookmark a question and, after answering every question in the section, return and change up to three answers, so a bookmark is a reasonable fallback for one or two close calls.
To practise:
- Learn one type at a time, untimed, with full review of every answer choice, including why each wrong choice is wrong.
- Then mix types under time, because on the exam you must recognise the type from the stem.
- Log every miss by type and by trap family. Most people find that two or three types and one trap family account for most of their errors. Our error log guide explains how to set this up.
Free sets: Critical Reasoning practice questions and weaken and strengthen questions. For how Verbal fits your overall target, see the score chart and percentiles guide, and for how to schedule CR practice, the GMAT Focus study plan. For pacing the whole Verbal section, including Reading Comprehension, see the GMAT Focus Verbal strategy guide.
Frequently asked questions
How many Critical Reasoning questions are on the GMAT Focus?
GMAC does not publish a fixed number. The Verbal Reasoning section has 23 questions in total, made up of Critical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension questions, and the mix you see can vary.
Is Sentence Correction still on the GMAT?
No. The GMAT Focus Edition removed Sentence Correction. Verbal Reasoning now contains only Critical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension.
What is the most common Critical Reasoning question type?
GMAC does not publish a breakdown by question type. In practice, weaken, strengthen and assumption questions all depend on the same skill, finding the gap between evidence and conclusion, so that skill is the best place to start.
How long should a GMAT Critical Reasoning question take?
The Verbal section averages just under two minutes per question, and Reading Comprehension passages need extra reading time. Aim for about two minutes per Critical Reasoning question, and guess and move on when you are well past that.
How do I get better at Critical Reasoning?
Learn the question types one at a time, predict the answer before reading the choices, and review every answer choice, not just the right one. Keep an error log that records the question type and the kind of wrong answer you fell for, and redo missed questions a few days later.