Home
/
Blogs
/
An Ancient Technique
16 Jun 2026
An Ancient Technique
One of the key things to remember in the GMAT’s critical reasoning section is that the argument is designed to have a flaw. You just need to figure out what that flaw is.
How to tell when a critical reasoning argument doesn’t follow
t’s very simple to tell when a conclusion doesn’t directly follow from its stated facts. You may have already guessed it from the previous statement.
- Simply assume the facts to be true and the conclusion to be false, and ask yourself how this might be possible.
Want to systematize it?
1) Catalogue the facts; what is presented as an objective statement – is it something that you could measure, write down, or take a photograph of?
2) Identify the conclusion; what is presented as an opinion statement – is it something that involves someone’s judgment? (Hint: Look for words such as ‘clearly’ or ‘must’)
3) Assume the facts to be true and incontrovertible.
4) Ask yourself; “how is it possible that the conclusion is not true?”
Think of any circumstance, no matter how unlikely, that would allow this. In many cases, the more unlikely the better.
Nevertheless, what’s confusing about the GMAT’s critical reasoning arguments is that many of the arguments aren’t terrible – they might well be true in many cases!
Remember, though, you’re looking for what is necessarily true. Or, ‘always true’. That is very different from ‘possibly true’, or, “yeah, maybe, sometimes true.”
What you’re looking for is the exception – the weird little circumstance – where the conclusion can be false. It follows, then, that the invalid assumption will be some sort of little ‘fudge factor’ that’s used to gloss over this outlying little problem.
In other words, the argument tries to say, “Ah, well, we can just ignore that little detail, right?” Wait. Not so fast. We’ve just caught them out.
Apply the reduction to absurdity method early and often
Unless a GMAT question specifically asks you to draw a conclusion based on provided facts, there will be a flaw in its critical reasoning argument.
Let’s try it on a tricky argument:
When analyzing the body armor of its returning combat troops, Bactrian Army officials recently discovered that the armor was most frequently damaged in the arms, legs, and lower torso. Therefore, in order to decrease serious injury among its deployed combat troops most effectively, the Bactrian Army has decided to increase the strength of its arm, leg, and lower torso armor.
Makes pretty decent sense, right? Facts-wise, we’re looking at a group of people who have been on the front lines, and it seems that the armor is being damaged in specific places. Conclusion-wise, we see that, to lower rates of serious injury ‘most effectively’ for all deployed troops, the Bactrian Army has decided to armor those specific places more heavily.
Now, let’s apply the reduction to absurdity method to see whether we can see drive a wedge into this argument, and if so, where.
Reduction to absurdity: How is it possible that we would not lower rates of serious injury 'most effectively' by armoring the arms, legs, and torso?
Table of Contents
About this article
Author
TCC Editorial Team