Method of reasoning questions ask how an argument works, not whether it works. Sometimes the stem asks how the author proceeds; often a second speaker responds to a first, and you must describe the technique of the reply. They are part of Critical Reasoning in the GMAT Focus Verbal section.
Describe the move in plain words before you look at the choices. Common methods: offering a counterexample to a general claim; pointing out that the evidence supports a different conclusion equally well; drawing an analogy; showing that a principle leads to an unacceptable result; questioning whether the evidence is representative; accepting the evidence but disputing what follows from it.
Pay close attention to what the second speaker concedes. Many replies accept the first speaker’s facts and attack only the inference. A choice that says the reply “disputes the accuracy of the evidence” is then wrong, however natural it sounds.
Answer choices are written in abstract terms, so check every clause against the argument. A choice can describe the method correctly in its first half and add something false in its second. Reject any choice that mentions a step the argument never takes, such as citing an authority or a statistic when none appears.
4 practice questions
Critical ReasoningMethod of ReasoningEasy
Question 1
Kaur: The city should not require new office buildings to include secure bicycle parking. Very few office workers in the city cycle to work, so the spaces would mostly sit empty.
Mendez: Few office workers cycle to work precisely because there is nowhere safe to leave a bicycle when they arrive. The scarcity of cyclists is not evidence that the spaces would go unused; it may be a result of the very shortage the requirement is meant to remedy.
Mendez responds to Kaur's argument by
Aquestioning the accuracy of the evidence that Kaur presents
Bproposing a different policy that would achieve Kaur's goal
Cshowing that Kaur's conclusion contradicts one of her premises
Dsuggesting that the fact Kaur cites may be an effect of the problem
Earguing that the spaces would benefit people other than cyclists
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Key Concept or Approach
Kaur: few people cycle, so the parking would go unused. Mendez accepts that few people cycle but reverses the causal story: few cycle because there is no parking.
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1: Identify the task (Method of Reasoning): Kaur: few people cycle, so the parking would go unused. Mendez accepts that few people cycle but reverses the causal story: few cycle because there is no parking.
Step 2: (D) Correct. Mendez argues that the low number of cyclists may be caused by the lack of bicycle parking, which is the problem the requirement would fix.
Step 3: (A) Mendez accepts that few office workers cycle; he disputes what that fact shows, not whether it is true.
Step 4: (B) Mendez defends the requirement; he proposes no alternative policy.
Step 5: (C) Mendez points to an alternative explanation, not to any internal contradiction in Kaur's reasoning.
Step 6: (E) Mendez never mentions benefits to anyone other than cyclists.
Final Answer
Answer: D
Common trap: A is tempting because Mendez disagrees with Kaur, but he never disputes that few people cycle; he accepts the fact and reinterprets its cause.
Critical ReasoningMethod of ReasoningMedium-hard
Question 2
Rhee: The national rail operator should raise its off-peak fares. Off-peak trains run far below capacity, and the operator loses money on every off-peak trip.
Osei: It is true that off-peak trips lose money when all costs are counted. But most of those costs, such as maintaining track, stations and trains, would have to be paid anyway in order to run peak-hour service. Off-peak fares already bring in more than the small extra cost of running those trains, and raising them would drive away some of those riders.
Osei responds to Rhee's argument by
Adisputing the accuracy of the evidence that Rhee presents
Bproposing a different way for the operator to reduce its overall losses
Cquestioning whether Rhee has the expertise needed to judge rail pricing
Darguing that a fact Rhee cites does not have the implication that Rhee draws from it
Eshowing that Rhee's conclusion contradicts one of Rhee's own premises
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Key Concept or Approach
Look at what Osei concedes and what Osei denies. Osei accepts that off-peak trips lose money ('It is true...') but argues that this loss does not justify raising fares, because the fares already cover the extra cost of the trips.
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1: Identify the task (Method of Reasoning) and the gap in the reasoning: Look at what Osei concedes and what Osei denies. Osei accepts that off-peak trips lose money ('It is true...') but argues that this loss does not justify raising fares, because the fares already cover the extra cost of the trips.
Step 2: (D) Correct. Osei grants Rhee's fact and attacks the inference: a loss measured against total costs does not show that raising fares would help, since most of those costs are fixed.
Step 3: (A) Osei explicitly agrees that off-peak trips lose money, so Osei does not dispute Rhee's evidence.
Step 4: (B) Osei does not offer an alternative plan; Osei only argues against Rhee's.
Step 5: (C) Osei never mentions Rhee's qualifications.
Step 6: (E) Osei does not claim Rhee is inconsistent; Osei brings in new information about fixed costs to challenge Rhee's inference.
Final Answer
Answer: D
Common trap: A is tempting because Osei pushes back on the money-losing point, but Osei explicitly concedes it ('It is true...') and challenges only what follows from it.
Critical ReasoningMethod of ReasoningMedium-hard
Question 3
Historian: It is often claimed that the arrival of the printing press caused the spread of literacy in sixteenth-century Veldmark. Yet parish records show that the proportion of adults able to sign their names on marriage registers rose just as steeply in the century before printing reached Veldmark as in the century after. Moreover, the region's first presses produced mostly Latin texts, which the newly literate could not read. The press may well have benefited from growing literacy, but it can hardly have caused it.
The historian's argument proceeds by
Ashowing that a proposed cause and its supposed effect never actually occurred together
Bnoting that a trend began before its supposed cause and that this cause was ill suited to produce it
Cinferring that because two developments occurred together, one of them must have caused the other
Drejecting a claim on the grounds that those who advance it have an interest in its acceptance
Eproposing that some third factor was responsible for both the press and the rise in literacy
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Key Concept or Approach
The historian attacks a causal claim with two pieces of evidence: literacy was already rising before printing arrived, and the early presses printed material the new readers could not use. The final sentence adds that the causation may run the other way.
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1: Identify the task (Method of Reasoning): The historian attacks a causal claim with two pieces of evidence: literacy was already rising before printing arrived, and the early presses printed material the new readers could not use. The final sentence adds that the causation may run the other way.
Step 2: (B) Correct. The parish records show the trend predates the press; the Latin texts show the press was poorly suited to spread literacy.
Step 3: (A) The press and rising literacy did coexist in the sixteenth century; the historian's point is that literacy was rising before the press arrived.
Step 4: (C) This describes the reasoning the historian criticizes, not the historian's own.
Step 5: (D) The historian says nothing about the motives of those who make the claim.
Step 6: (E) The historian suggests literacy may have helped the press (reverse causation), not that a third factor caused both.
Final Answer
Answer: B
Common trap: E is tempting because the last sentence offers an alternative causal picture, but that picture is reverse causation (literacy helped the press), not a common third cause.
Critical ReasoningMethod of ReasoningHard
Question 4
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
Key Concept or 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.
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1: Identify the task (Method of Reasoning) and the gap in the reasoning: 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.
Step 2: (B) Correct. Brandt allows that the ban may be justified (for example, by exhaust) but rejects noise as its justification.
Step 3: (A) Brandt accepts that blowers are noisy. He argues only that gas and electric blowers sound much the same from a neighbor's window.
Step 4: (C) Brandt says nothing about costs to residents.
Step 5: (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.
Step 6: (E) Brandt says the ban would not help with noise, not that it would make noise worse.
Final Answer
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.
