Here are solution strategies for each of the sample reasoning and critical thinking skills test items. With the strategy proposed for each is a statement of how that strategy can be applied and, for each possible answer choice, an explanation of why it is or is not the best among those offered.

Solution Strategy - Item #1: Interpreting "in the firm's best interest" as in its best financial interest, the best answer from among those given will be the option which costs the firm the least.

Applying the strategy - Item #1: Interpreting "in the firm's best interest" - Interpreting the firm's best interest as meaning in its financial interest is based on two contextual elements: First that the question is set in the context of business transactions rather than other possible kinds of personal or social issues which might emerge in the workplace; and, second, that the details provided in the body of the question and its four answer choices are about time and money. Financial interests are not the only potential concerns Sylvia's firm might have. Good critical thinking not only enables one to recognize the multiplicity of possible interpretations, it also enables one to make a prudent choice among them. In this case, given all that is said and not said about Sylvia, her productivity, her work habits, and her job satisfaction, it would be unreasonable to interpret "in the best interest of Sylvia's firm" as meaning something other than in its financial interest.

Focusing on costs, therefore, the reasoning tasks become analyzing each of the four options and drawing correct inferences about their respective financial impacts. The final critical thinking tasks are to compare the projected costs of each option and to select the one which would be the least costly to the firm. Along the way the person with strong critical thinking skills would be monitoring his or her own reasoning, vigilant for possible errors in calculating the costs or errors in properly analyzing the details of each of the four choices. The person might reason as follows:

Option (A) would cost $700. The $500 paid to Ed's Phone Repair Shop and the $200 of lost profits Sylvia would otherwise have been expected to generate in the 30 minutes between 10:00 a.m. when the phone broke down and 10:30 a.m. when the replacement phone is in place.
Option (B) will cost nothing for the phone, since the instrument is already in inventory. But it will cost the firm six hours of net revenue, which is $2400, because Sylvia will not be able to make calls until tomorrow.
Option (C) would cost $875 or a bit more. That figure comes from the two hours of lost time between 10:00 am and Noon, plus the $75 to reimburse Sylvia for the cost of the new phone, plus perhaps whatever little bit of additional profits would be lost in the few minutes it would take Sylvia to install that new phone herself.
Option (D) requires that Sylvia not have a working phone for a total duration of four hours. But one of those four hours is the noon hour, which she spends at lunch. Thus it would cost the firm $1200 for the other three hours when she would ordinarily be working on the phone; or maybe more, depending on how soon after 2:00 PM she actually completes the repair.

Answer -- Item #1: Option A, for it costs the firm the least financially.

Click to revisit Sample Item #1

Click to go on to Sample Item #2

Solution Strategy - Item #2: The reasoning task here is to evaluate how well the speaker makes the case for not reducing reliance on petroleum vehicle fuels. That evaluation requires determining how fair-minded the speaker was in presenting and critiquing the major arguments for the opposite point of view, and determining how strong the reasons are which the speaker presented for the view he is defending. To address these questions well one must momentarily set aside one's own opinions on the issue at hand so as not to be distracted from evaluating the speaker.

Applying the Strategy - Item #2: The speaker identifies three arguments in favor of reducing reliance on petroleum fuels. One is the influence of foreign leaders on our nation's economy. The second is the environment. And the third is the potential to exhaust that resource. The speaker's strategy is not so much to make the case in favor of continuing to rely petroleum fuels, but rather to attack the arguments for the opposite view. The speaker's reasoning is roughly like this: "There are three reasons not to rob banks, two of which are not very good in my estimation; so it is fine to rob banks." This is an "I'm right because you're wrong" approach. It ignores the possibility that both are wrong. Thus reasoning to the best answer choice from among those provided requires taking each option in turn to see which choice comes the closest to expressing the judgment that the speaker has failed to give due consideration to the full range of the opposition's point of view, or, failing to find that choice among those given, finding instead a choice that says that the speaker has not presented good and sufficient reasons for the view espoused.

Option (A) is not acceptable first because it puts the speaker's reasoning in the "solid" category, which it is not; and second because it asserts that the speaker showed the weaknesses of the arguments for reducing reliance, which is a task the speaker did not complete.
Option (B) again puts the speaker's reasoning in the "solid" category, an error in the overall evaluation of the speaker. This option also presents considerations which are secondary, but not primary in evaluating reasoning. The speaker may be delivering his or her opinion in a clear and forceful way, and may be forthright in declaring reasons, but clarity (like forcefulness or self- confidence) by itself does not make the opinion correct or the reasons cogent.
Option (C) puts us on the right track for it correctly categorizes the reasoning as "weak". Unfortunately the reason given in this option is simply an unsupported ad hominem attack on the speaker. Whatever the speaker's financial interests may be, and however much those may or may not have moved the speaker in one direction or another on this issue, we can evaluate the speaker's arguments independent of those interests.
Option (D) is correct in its categorization of the reasoning as "weak". And it rightly notes that the speaker failed to address one of the three important arguments for the opposite point of view.

Answer - Item #2: Option (D) is the best among the choices provided.

 

Note - Item #2: If other options had been provided, we might not have selected Option (D). For example we were not given an "Option (E)" which might have said "weak: The speaker's optimism about future technology is unfounded, the speaker's cynicism about the political influence of big oil companies on energy policies does make us wonder about how much control foreign interests will have, and waging war for oil is not a sensible foreign policy." Nor were we given a question prompt that had the speaker making a stronger case for his or her view with statements like: "For the foreseeable future our best hybrid technology only reduces, but does not eliminate our reliance on petroleum vehicle fuels," or "There will be tremendous costs associated with building the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use alternative vehicle fuels." This brings to mind the point that on a test like this one must focus on the question and the choices as they are given.

Click to revisit Sample Item #2

Click to go on to Sample Item #3

 

Solution Strategy - Item #3: Multiple-choice test questions are typically thought of as sets of true-false items where a person works down the list from A through E eliminating wrong choices until a right choice appears. Then the person checks their work by being sure that the remaining choices in the list, if any, are also wrong. But what is to be done if more than one choice is possibly true? This question offers that situation. It invites us to draw inferences from what is not said, just as much as from what is given in the question. A mistake would be to read too much into the question by projecting our own or other peoples' possible feelings on the characters being described.

Applying the Strategy - Item #3: We begin by seeing rather easily that the first two options are wrong. But options "C," "D," and "E," are all possible. Consider "C." Perhaps it is true that Barbara feels some envy or jealousy about her friend's success, after all they did collaborate on the group assignments. Might Barbara not have some reason to think that perhaps it is not entirely fair that the two of them did not end up with the same honor at graduation? On the other hand, Barbara might not feel that way at all. In fact, she might be very happy for her friend; and she might know that, all things considered, Anna did deserve the honor and she, Barbara, did not. Consider "D." Maybe the faculty's decision to advise Deirdre to leave the program was not based only on her substandard performance. Perhaps the faculty were unwilling to continue with a graduate student who voiced such negative things about their program. The motives of the faculty might have been mixed, in other words. And maybe, to amplify the scenario, we might suppose that the faculty liked Carol and maybe that inclined the faculty to be more tolerant toward whatever shortcomings may have been evident in her work. Maybe? But, this is reading a lot into the question; more than would be prudent even without the word "only" in the last line of the question as a warning. Consider "E." Who knows what Anna will now decide to do. Yes, it is possible that her experience of academic success will lead her to consider going for another advanced degree. And maybe her faculty advisor will suggest that she has the potential to be very successful doing so. But, again, while this is plausible, we would be reading too much into the question to select "E" as the best choice from among those provided.

Answer - Item #3: Option (D).

Explanation for choice D in Item #3.
A: No. Had their work been comparable to Anna's, they would most probably have received the same recognition.
B: No. The information provided suggests that Carol and Barbara probably produced work of similar quality.
C: Perhaps. But probably not, for there is nothing in the information provided which suggests that Barbara felt this way.
D: Yes. Given that Deirdre was advised to withdraw due to poor work, but Carol was successful, we can infer that Deirdre's work most probably was not as good as Carol's.
E: Maybe, but from the information given we cannot determine what she will decide to do.

Note on "probably": In reviewing all five options notice how often the words "probably," "perhaps," and "maybe" are used. There is no certainty here, even though the question may appear to be similar to a mathematics item that might begin,"There are four numbers, A is greater than B and C, B and C are equal..." And yet, the superiority of "D" among the five choices given, is substantial. In terms of good critical thinking, selecting "D" is not a random or coin-toss kind of probability either.

Click to revisit Sample Item #3

Comments regarding these questions or analyses are welcome.
Please e-mail them to
jmorante@insightassessment.com