Critical reasoning boldface
60 flashcards covering Critical reasoning boldface for the GMAT Verbal section.
Critical Reasoning Boldface questions focus on analyzing the structure of arguments, particularly by identifying the role of specific bolded words or phrases. In these questions, you're presented with a short passage that contains an argument, and the bolded text might represent a premise, a conclusion, an assumption, or evidence. This helps build skills in logical reasoning, as understanding these elements allows you to evaluate arguments more effectively, which is essential for critical thinking in business and management contexts.
On the GMAT Verbal section, Boldface questions appear within Critical Reasoning problems, typically asking you to select the correct description of the bolded part from answer choices. Common traps include confusing supporting evidence with the main conclusion or misinterpreting the argument's flow, so watch for subtle shifts in logic. Focus on practicing how to dissect arguments into their core components, like premises and inferences, to improve accuracy and speed.
A helpful tip: Always outline the argument's structure before tackling the question.
Terms (60)
- 01
Boldface question
A type of Critical Reasoning question on the GMAT where a portion of the argument is bolded, and you must identify the role that bolded statement plays in the overall argument structure.
- 02
Argument structure
The logical framework of a passage, typically consisting of premises that support a conclusion, and in boldface questions, the bolded part is a key element within this framework.
- 03
Premise
A statement in an argument that provides evidence or reasons to support the conclusion, often appearing as a fact or assumption in boldface questions.
- 04
Conclusion
The main claim or inference that the argument is trying to prove, which might be the bolded portion in a GMAT Critical Reasoning question.
- 05
Evidence
Specific facts or data used to support a premise or conclusion in an argument, and in boldface questions, it could be the role of the bolded statement.
- 06
Assumption
An unstated belief that the argument relies on to connect premises to the conclusion, potentially highlighted in a bolded section of a GMAT question.
- 07
Counterpremise
A statement that opposes or contrasts with the main argument, which might be bolded to show its role in weakening or qualifying the conclusion.
- 08
Intermediate conclusion
A sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion, often appearing as the bolded part in more complex GMAT Critical Reasoning arguments.
- 09
Main conclusion
The primary point the argument aims to establish, frequently the focus in boldface questions where the bolded text is this element.
- 10
Background information
Contextual details provided in the argument that set the stage, and if bolded, it might be identified as non-essential to the core logic.
- 11
Inference
A logical deduction drawn from the premises, which could be the role of a bolded statement in a GMAT Critical Reasoning problem.
- 12
Counterexample
An example that challenges or disproves a general claim, potentially bolded to illustrate its role in questioning the argument.
- 13
Role identification
The process of determining whether the bolded text functions as a premise, conclusion, or other element in the argument's structure on the GMAT.
- 14
Logical connector
Words or phrases that link parts of an argument, though not typically bolded, their role might be inferred in boldface questions.
- 15
Weakening element
A statement that undermines the argument, and if bolded, it could be the focus in questions about its role in creating doubt.
- 16
Supporting evidence
Facts or data that bolster a premise, often the role of a bolded section in arguments involving scientific or statistical claims.
- 17
Conditional statement
A statement with an if-then structure that might be bolded, requiring analysis of its role in the logical flow of the argument.
- 18
Analogy in argument
A comparison used to illustrate a point, which could be bolded to show how it supports or exemplifies the conclusion.
- 19
Contradiction
A statement that conflicts with another part of the argument, potentially bolded to highlight its role in creating tension.
- 20
Hypothesis
A proposed explanation that the argument tests, and if bolded, it might be key to understanding the argument's direction.
- 21
Rebuttal
A response that addresses a counterargument, which could be the bolded element in debates presented in GMAT questions.
- 22
Generalization
A broad statement based on specific evidence, often bolded to examine its role as a conclusion or assumption.
- 23
Exception
A case that doesn't fit the general rule, potentially bolded to show how it qualifies or limits the argument.
- 24
Causal claim
A statement asserting that one event causes another, which might be bolded for analysis of its logical role.
- 25
Correlation evidence
Data showing a relationship between variables, and if bolded, it could be scrutinized for its supporting role.
- 26
Flawed reasoning
A logical error in the argument, such as a bolded statement that represents a common fallacy like hasty generalization.
- 27
Strategy for boldface questions
First, read the entire argument to understand the context, then analyze the bolded part's function in relation to the conclusion and premises.
- 28
Identifying premises
Look for statements that provide reasons or evidence, as they are common roles for bolded text in GMAT Critical Reasoning.
- 29
Spotting conclusions
Recognize indicators like 'therefore' or 'thus,' which might signal that the bolded text is the main point.
- 30
Avoiding common traps
Don't assume the bolded text is the conclusion just because it's emphasized; always check its logical connection.
- 31
Multiple roles in one argument
Some arguments have bolded text that serves as both a premise and support for an intermediate conclusion, adding complexity.
- 32
Bolded text as evidence
When the bolded portion provides factual support, evaluate how it links to the overall claim without introducing bias.
- 33
Nuance in counterarguments
Bolded text might represent a counterpoint, requiring you to assess how it challenges the main argument's validity.
- 34
Hierarchical structure
Arguments with layers, where bolded text could be at a sub-level, supporting a higher conclusion in advanced questions.
- 35
Implicit assumptions in boldface
Sometimes the bolded text reveals an unstated assumption, key to understanding potential flaws.
- 36
Evaluating strength of evidence
Assess if the bolded evidence is strong or weak in supporting the conclusion, a common advanced analysis.
- 37
Bolded statement as inference
If the bolded part draws a logical step from premises, identify it as an inference rather than a direct fact.
- 38
Common fallacy in boldface
Watch for bolded text that embodies fallacies like appealing to emotion, which weakens the argument's logic.
- 39
Worked example: Simple argument
In an argument where a bolded statement provides data, it acts as a premise supporting the conclusion that a policy is effective.
The bolded 'Sales increased by 20% last quarter' supports the conclusion that the new marketing strategy works.
- 40
Bolded as counterexample
A bolded statement that presents an exception to a general rule, showing limitations in the argument.
- 41
Advanced role analysis
In complex arguments, the bolded text might bridge multiple premises to a conclusion, requiring precise mapping.
- 42
Misidentification trap
A common error is mistaking a bolded premise for a conclusion due to its position, so always trace logical flow.
- 43
Bolded in causal arguments
The bolded part might state a cause-effect relationship, which you evaluate for validity in the context.
- 44
Sub-conclusion identification
A bolded intermediate conclusion supports the main one, often in arguments with multiple layers.
- 45
Evidence evaluation strategy
When bolded text is evidence, check if it's sufficient or if gaps exist that could weaken the argument.
- 46
Bolded text in debates
In argumentative passages, the bolded portion could be a rebuttal, countering an opposing view.
- 47
General to specific roles
Bolded text might generalize from specifics or vice versa, affecting the argument's strength.
- 48
Assumption spotting in boldface
Identify if the bolded statement implies an assumption that the argument hinges on.
- 49
Worked example: Flawed argument
If a bolded statement assumes correlation implies causation, it weakens the conclusion about a policy's impact.
The bolded 'Regions with more parks have lower crime' assumes parks cause lower crime, which may not be true.
- 50
Bolded as hypothesis
A bolded statement proposing a testable idea, which the argument then explores or supports.
- 51
Contradictory evidence role
Bolded text that presents evidence against the main claim, highlighting potential flaws.
- 52
Layered argument strategy
For arguments with bolded sub-elements, break down each layer to see how they build to the final conclusion.
- 53
Avoiding overgeneralization
In boldface questions, don't overgeneralize the role; ensure it fits precisely within the argument.
- 54
Bolded in statistical arguments
The bolded part might present statistics, requiring you to assess their relevance to the conclusion.
- 55
Inference from boldface
Use the bolded text to infer logical connections, such as how it leads to the argument's outcome.
- 56
Common pattern: Evidence then conclusion
Many boldface questions have the bolded text as evidence preceding the conclusion.
- 57
Advanced trap: Hidden assumptions
Bolded statements may embed assumptions that aren't obvious, leading to misinterpretation if overlooked.
- 58
Worked example: Counterpremise
In an argument for a new law, a bolded statement might act as a counterpremise by noting potential downsides.
The bolded 'However, enforcement could be costly' counters the main conclusion supporting the law.
- 59
Role in persuasive arguments
Bolded text in persuasive contexts often serves to reinforce the speaker's position or address objections.
- 60
Final evaluation step
After identifying the bolded role, verify how it impacts the argument's overall validity or strength.