Verbal Reasoning Flashcards

A passage states: 'All mammals are warm-blooded. Whales are mammals.' Which conclusion is definitely true?

Answer: Whales are warm-blooded

The two premises form a valid syllogism: all mammals are warm-blooded, whales are mammals, therefore whales are warm-blooded. This follows deductively.

A passage describes a hospital that increased nursing staff by 20% and saw patient complaints fall by 15%. Which statement is best supported?

Answer: More nursing staff was associated with fewer complaints

The passage shows association between two changes, not causation. 'Associated with' is the accurate, evidence-based interpretation without overreaching.

'Some students who passed the exam had not studied. All students who studied passed.' A student did not study. What can we infer?

Answer: The student may or may not have passed

Knowing all who studied passed tells us nothing definitive about those who did not study — some of them also passed. The outcome is uncertain.

A passage argues that urban green spaces reduce stress. It cites one study of 50 people. Which is the strongest criticism?

Answer: The sample size is too small to generalise

A sample of 50 is small; drawing broad generalisations from it is methodologically weak. This directly undermines the passage's conclusion.

Passage: 'Organic food sales rose 30% last year. Supermarkets expanded organic ranges.' Which assumption underlies the conclusion that supermarkets caused the sales rise?

Answer: Consumers bought organic food because it was more available

The argument assumes that increased availability in supermarkets drove the rise. Without this assumption, the causal link between supermarket range expansion and sales rise does not hold.

A text says: 'No evidence of harm does not mean something is safe.' This statement most closely means:

Answer: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The phrase is a classic epistemological statement: just because we have not found evidence of harm does not logically prove safety. This is 'absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence'.