How can you distinguish support from a conclusion?
FNEGE describes Critical Reasoning as involving everyday situations or opinions expressed in the media. The categories used here are an Upsilar teaching tool for analyzing the arguments below; they are not an official or exhaustive list of subtest question types.
First identify what the author wants you to accept. That is the conclusion, whether it concerns a fact, prediction, or decision. Then ask, “What supports it?” The answers are the premises. Words such as “therefore” or “because” can help, but an argument may work without them.
Compare the terms on both sides. Moving from “cases per day” to “cases per employee” introduces staffing levels. Moving from a past observation to a prediction assumes a relevant continuity. Look for an assumption in that transition, not in a detail merely related to the topic.
What information is missing between a total and an average?
The first exercise concerns the logic of the comparison, not a real company. Treat the numbers given as the argument’s premises.
Argument : « Notre service traitait 100 dossiers par jour ; il en traite désormais 120. Le nombre moyen de dossiers traités chaque jour par salarié a donc augmenté. » Quelle condition sur l’effectif est nécessaire à cette conclusion, à partir de ces chiffres ?
Choose an answer.
The solution, step by step
The current staff size is less than 120% of the previous staff size.
The method in action
- The premise concerns the daily total; the conclusion concerns that total divided by the number of employees. If N is the previous staff size and M is the current one, it requires 120/M > 100/N.
- Since staff sizes are positive, this inequality is equivalent to M < 1.20 × N. Staff size must therefore have increased by less than 20%, stayed the same, or decreased.
- With 10 employees and then 12, the average remains 10 cases per employee: a 20% increase in the total is not enough. The other options do not address this denominator.
What does negating a necessary assumption reveal?
To test a necessary assumption, negate it while keeping the premises: if the argument can still support its conclusion, the assumption is not necessary. If the support disappears, you have found an essential link. This test does not mean making the scenario absurd or denying all the facts.
Argument : « Le colis arrivera mardi à 16 heures. Le point de retrait ferme mardi à 18 heures. Je pourrai donc le récupérer mardi avant la fermeture. » Quelle hypothèse est nécessaire à ce raisonnement ?
Choose an answer.
The solution, step by step
The package will actually be available for pickup at a time when I can get there before 6 p.m.
The method in action
- The package’s arrival and the closing time are the premises. The conclusion is that I can personally pick it up.
- Negating this assumption means there is no time before 6 p.m. when the package will be ready and the person can get there. For example, the package may not be available until Wednesday, or the person may be unable to arrive before 6 p.m. The premises can remain true while the conclusion no longer follows.
- The order date, package weight, and Sunday opening hours do not restore this link. A useful assumption must concern the stated possibility of picking up the package.
The pitfall
Confusing a necessary assumption with possible supporting evidence
Information can make a conclusion more credible without being essential. In the second exercise, a quiet pickup location might be reassuring, but a line does not necessarily prevent someone from collecting the package in time. Low traffic is therefore not a necessary condition.
A necessary assumption is essential to the reasoning; a sufficient condition, together with the premises, establishes the conclusion. A condition can be both: in the first exercise, M < 1.20 × N is exactly equivalent to an increase in the average. A necessary condition is therefore not always sufficient on its own.
Follow the prompt: finding an assumption, strengthening an argument, and weakening its conclusion are different tasks. Do not apply the negation test automatically to every critical-reasoning question.
How can you analyze an argument in three lines?
Write “facts,” “conclusion,” then “missing link.” Try to formulate the link before looking at the options. This helps you avoid choosing a sentence simply because it repeats words from the prompt.
After reviewing, construct a scenario in which the premises remain true but the conclusion fails. This counter-scenario shows why the missing information matters. Keep it simple and focused; adding five changes to the situation would make it difficult to identify the actual flaw.
Key takeaways
- Separate what is given from what must be established.
- Look for a shift in quantity, time period, or scope.
- A necessary assumption is more than helpful information.