CR Strategy Clarification

[baber.afzal]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was going through the strategy guide for Critical Reasoning and I am facing challenges in the Assumption section (Chapter 4 of the CR Strategy guide).

It lists that there are mainly 4 different types of Assumption techniques which are:

1. Logic Gap
2. Feasibility of Premises
3. Alternate Path
4. Alternate Model of Causation.

The question I have is, how can you tell by just simply reading an argument which technique needs to be used? It is sometimes impossible to think of the right assumptions without looking at the answer choices.

Is there a trick to determine which technique to use by simply studying the answer choices? or by picking up key words being used in the answer choices?

Please advise.

Thanking you

Best,

Baber

[esledge]

Hi Baber,

I look for the certain qualities in the premises, the conclusion, and the relationship between them.

1. Logic Gap
Premise is about one thing/quality, but the conclusion is about a totally different thing/quality. Write these key words on your paper. If the argument doesn't explicitly say how these things/qualities are related, you will look for an assumption that "bridges the gap."

2. Feasibility of Premises
Premises are less-factual, more debatable or plan-like. If you see a lot of future tense or hypothetical verbs (will, should, would), be on the lookout for an assumption that confirms the premises will go as planned.

3. Alternate Path
Often, the conclusion will have an extreme or superlative in it: "Plan XYZ is the most efficient way to ...." "Therefore, the only way to..." These strong words are (ironically) the weakest point of the argument. To disprove the conclusion, you'd only have to offer an alternative (and any will do!). Thus, the assumption you look for here is one that rejects or eliminates possible alternative(s).

4. Alternate Model of Causation.
This one is very formulaic. The premise equates or correlates two factors/qualities/situations, often saying something like "people who X tend to Y." The conclusion says that one of those factors/qualities/situations causes the other. Look for an assumption that rules out the opposite causation direction between the factors/qualities/situations. In symbolic form, these arguments look like this:
Premise: X = Y
Conclusion: X---->Y
Assumption: Y--/-->X