Let’s dive into the wonderful world of inductive reasoning, which appears much more often, especially in the following CAT question types:
• Assumption
• Strengthen
• Weaken
• Evaluate
• Fill in the blank
• Identify the role
• Identify the overall reasoning
• Identify the conclusion
• Mimic the reasoning (sometimes)
tThe CAT and the other entrances writes 4 types of conclusions: predictions, opinions, solutions, and explanations (acronym P.O.S.E.)
Predictions: Something that “will” happen sometime in the future, using past or present circumstances to make that prediction.
Opinions: Interpretations of facts or data–often value judgments (good/bad/true false). I use “opinion” as a catchall category for anything that doesn’t fall under the other three.
Solutions: Plans, recommendations, solutions to problems, strategies, or suggestions of what someone “should” or “must” do.
Explanations: WHY something happened, or the cause of some phenomenon.
Example 1:
Reviewer: The book Art’s Decline argues that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of preceding centuries. In this the book must be right, since its analysis of 100 paintings, 50 old and 50 contemporary, demonstrates convincingly that none of the contemporary paintings are executed as skillfully as the older paintings.
Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reviewer’s argument?
(A) The paintings chosen by the book’s author for analysis could be those that most support the book’s thesis.
(B) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.
(C) The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book’s thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.
(D) The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.
Analysis:
1) RTFQ
Some might call this a “flaw” question, but since the correct answer will attack the conclusion, you can just call it a “weaken” question.
2) Deconstruct
Conclusion: “In this [painters today lack skills] the book must be right.”
Notice how this is more of a value judgment than a prediction, explanation, or solution, so we can just call it a general “opinion.”
Premise: In the 100 paintings in the book, the 50 old ones were more skilled than the 50 contemporary.
With any opinion, ask yourself the following questions:
Are the premises RELEVANT? Are these 100 paintings representative of ALL old and contemporary paintings?
Are the premises SUFFICIENT? Are 100 paintings enough to prove a blanket statement about all European artists?
Could there be OTHER FACTORS? Are there other paintings not in the book that might disprove this conclusion?
3) State the goal:
We need to find an answer that proves these 100 paintings are irrelevant/unrepresentative, or that there’s another factor that makes contemporary painters just as skilled, if not more skilled, than the old ones.
4) POE (Process Of Elimination)
The correct answer (A) indicates that the paintings might have been selected to prove the thesis (an unrepresentative sample), and suggests there may be other paintings that disprove the conclusion.
PREDICTIONS
Key words: predict, will, probably, future, trend, etc.
Conclusion: Something “will” happen in the future.
Premises: A description of past events, or a description of the present.
Assumptions: The past (or present) is the same as the future, with no significant differences. Nothing will change to affect the future.
To strengthen: Show that nothing will change, that trends occurring in the present will continue in the same direction.
To weaken: Show that something significant is going to change.
Example 2:
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A)The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
(B)Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlands’ incomes being spent on food that is currently the case.
(C)The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
(D)The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
Analysis:
1) RTFQ:
First of all, this is an assumption question. The answer will support the argument. In fact, the argument won’t hold up without this assumption.
2) Deconstruct:
Conclusion: “Gortland will soon have to import grain or meat or both.”
AHA! The word “will” indicates the author is making a prediction.
Predictions often make the assumption that nothing else will change. We know consumption of meat is in the rise, so the author is assuming that consumption of grain will stay the same.
3) State the goal:
I predict that the answer will say something to the effect of “nothing else changes.”
4) POE (Process Of Elimination)
The only two answers that imply, “things WON’T change” are (B) and (E). But (B) mentions income, which is irrelevant to the prediction. And if people did decrease their grain consumption, the conclusion would fall apart. (E) must be the answer.
EXPLANATIONS
Key words: due to, result of, cause, because, reason why, etc.
Conclusion: Event A caused Event B (causation).
Premises: Event A occurred. Event B also occurred (correlation).
Assumptions: Event A is the only cause. There are no other causes. Event B did not cause event A (not reversed). It’s not a coincidence.
To strengthen: Provide evidence for a causal link. Eliminate potential other causes. Show that the purported cause happened first (and very close in time). With a control group, show what happens when you remove the proposed cause (no cause = the effect should go away).
To weaken: Show evidence another cause. Prove it was a coincidence. Show the cause without the effect. Show the effect without the cause. Show that B was actually the cause of A.