Verbal Reasoning Test

1. If two statements cannot both be true at the same time, I notice that contradiction quickly.

2. If a conclusion claims ""therefore, all,"" but the evidence supports only ""some,"" I notice that mismatch.

3. I can compare two short passages and accurately identify how their claims or purposes differ.

4. I can tell the difference between a statement that is implied by the text and one that is merely consistent with it.

5. When a passage includes dates, quantities, or comparisons, I can track them without confusing them.

6. I can summarize a paragraph in one sentence without losing its essential meaning.

7. I can spot when an argument treats ""no evidence against"" as if it were ""evidence for.""

8. I can correctly interpret a passage that contains mild ambiguity by using context to resolve it.

9. When a statement contains a double negative or complex phrasing, I can still infer its logical meaning accurately.

10. When two sentences seem to contradict each other, I can usually determine whether they truly conflict or can be reconciled.

11. I can tell the difference between evidence that supports a claim and details that are merely related but irrelevant.

12. When a passage uses contrast words (e.g., “however,” “although”), I correctly interpret the relationship between ideas.

13. I can identify an unstated assumption that an argument depends on to make its conclusion seem valid.

14. I can spot when a conclusion does not logically follow from the statements that precede it.

15. I can determine which conclusion logically follows from the information in a short passage.

16. I can identify the relationship in analogies (e.g., part-to-whole, cause-to-effect, degree) and apply it to new word pairs.

17. I can identify whether a conclusion is certain, probable, or merely possible based on the wording of the passage.

18. I can spot when an answer choice goes beyond the passage by adding information the author did not provide.

19. I can identify the passage’s organizational structure (e.g., cause-effect, problem-solution, comparison).

20. I can keep track of shifting perspectives in a passage (e.g., what one group believes versus another).

21. I can spot when a conclusion goes beyond what the premises justify (an overgeneralization).

22. Given a brief passage, I can infer what is most strongly supported without adding outside knowledge.

23. I can determine which option best paraphrases a sentence from a passage without changing its meaning.

24. I avoid treating a statement that is merely possible as if it were definitely true when making an inference.

25. I can identify the meaning of an unfamiliar word from its context in a sentence or paragraph.

26. I can identify the author’s purpose (e.g., to inform, persuade, or criticize) based on the passage.

27. When answering comprehension questions, I usually avoid choices that are too extreme compared with what the text actually says.

28. I can identify the tone or attitude of a writer (e.g., skeptical, enthusiastic, neutral) from word choice and phrasing.

29. I can identify what must be true for the passage’s argument to hold, based on what is written.

30. I can recognize when an argument attacks a person's character instead of addressing the reasoning (a relevance problem).

31. Given a few premises, I can determine whether a proposed conclusion must be true, could be true, or cannot be true.

32. If a passage says ""only X are Y,"" I correctly infer what that allows (and does not allow) about non-X cases.

33. I can interpret qualifiers (e.g., “some,” “most,” “rarely,” “only if”) accurately when drawing conclusions from text.

34. I can identify the tone of a passage (e.g., neutral, skeptical, enthusiastic) based on word choice.

35. I can determine whether a piece of information strengthens or weakens an argument's conclusion.

36. I can answer questions about a passage using only what is written, without adding my own assumptions.

37. I can accurately infer information that is implied but not directly stated in a passage.

38. I can integrate information from different parts of a passage to answer a question that requires combining details.

39. I can reliably choose the best synonym for a word based on how it is used in a passage.

40. I can follow a chain of reasoning across several sentences and remember how each point supports the next.

41. Given a short argument, I can identify the key assumption it depends on.

42. I can accurately answer “Which statement weakens/strengthens the passage’s conclusion?” questions when they depend on understanding the passage.

43. I can tell when an argument confuses correlation with causation.

44. I can recognize when a sentence provides evidence versus when it provides background context.

45. I can distinguish between details that are important to the passage’s argument and details that are merely illustrative.

46. When a passage uses figurative language or idioms, I can usually interpret the intended meaning correctly.

47. I can identify the strongest evidence in a passage that supports a stated claim.

48. I can correctly infer what an unfamiliar word means from the surrounding sentences.

49. I can evaluate whether an example actually supports a general claim or is just an isolated case.

50. When I read a short passage, I can identify its main point even if it is not stated in the first sentence.

51. If a passage presents two viewpoints, I can clearly identify which reasons support each viewpoint.

52. I can answer questions about why an author included a specific sentence or detail in a passage.

53. I can recognize common reasoning flaws in text (e.g., overgeneralizing from a single example).

54. I can distinguish between a statement that is a fact and one that is an opinion in most texts I read.

55. I can interpret comparison structures accurately (e.g., “no less than,” “as many as,” “fewer than”) in written statements.

56. I can tell the difference between what the author knows as fact and what the author suggests as a possibility.

57. I can identify the central claim in a short argument even when it is not stated as the first or last sentence.

58. When reading a short argument, I can identify information that would be most important to check before accepting the conclusion.

59. I can judge whether the conclusion of a short argument is too strong, too weak, or appropriately cautious given the evidence.

60. I can identify the strongest support for a conclusion when given several possible pieces of evidence.

61. When a passage includes multiple viewpoints, I can keep track of who believes what without confusion.

62. When a passage includes qualifiers like ""some,"" ""most,"" or ""only,"" I take them into account when drawing conclusions.

63. I can identify when an author is giving an example versus stating a conclusion.

64. I can track references such as pronouns (“it,” “they,” “this”) and know what they refer to in a complex paragraph.

65. I can detect when a statement is ambiguous and consider multiple plausible interpretations before deciding.

66. I can identify when an argument's conclusion is simply restating a premise in different words (circular reasoning).

67. I can recognize when an argument relies on an ambiguous term that shifts meaning across sentences.

68. When an argument includes an ""if...then..."" statement, I can correctly infer what follows and what does not.

69. When I read a short passage, I can usually identify the author’s main point quickly.

70. I can detect when a conclusion depends on ignoring an important alternative explanation.

71. I can identify what a pronoun (e.g., “it,” “they,” “this”) refers to in a complex paragraph.

72. I can answer “Which statement is best supported by the passage?” questions accurately.

73. When a passage lists multiple claims, I can track which claim each piece of evidence is meant to support.

74. I can answer questions that require combining information from two different sentences in the same passage.

75. When evaluating a short argument, I can reliably distinguish what is stated as evidence from what is claimed as a conclusion.

76. When an argument uses a general rule (e.g., ""All A are B""), I can correctly apply it to a specific case.

77. When two premises interact, I can combine them to infer a new statement that follows logically.

78. I can recognize subtle differences in meaning between similar words (e.g., “skeptical” vs. “cynical”).

79. When reading, I notice qualifiers (e.g., “often,” “rarely,” “some,” “all”) and use them to answer questions accurately.

80. After reading a paragraph, I can summarize it in one sentence without changing its meaning.

81. I can tell when a statement is implied by the passage even if it is not directly stated.

82. After reading a passage once, I can recall the key details needed to answer questions without rereading extensively.

83. If a passage provides necessary conditions versus sufficient conditions, I can keep them straight while inferring conclusions.

84. When an argument uses comparative language (e.g., ""better,"" ""more,"" ""less""), I can infer what comparisons are actually supported.

85. I can determine what information would weaken an argument when presented with possible counterexamples or missing facts.

86. I can choose the most reasonable conclusion from a set of statements without adding assumptions that are not supported.

87. I can infer the logical consequences of a definition (e.g., if something meets the definition, what must be true about it).