Loading....
Coupon Accepted Successfully!

 

Assertive Type

The answer to this type of question is an assertive YES or an assertive NO or an assertive TRUE or assertive FALSE.
  • Whether each statement is true according to the sources.
  • Whether each statement or numerical value is consistent with the sources.

Data Sufficiency Type

The answer to this type of questions is in terms of whether the given data would help explain the statement or the given data would not help explain.
 
This is similar to the data sufficiency section in GMAT math.
  • Whether each statement or algebraic expression would solve a problem described in the sources.
  • Whether the value of each algebraic expression can be determined on the basis of the sources.

Two-Part Analysis Type

Some Problems have multiple questions. Choices are presented in columns, one column per question. The possible answers and your choices will be given in a table format. The possible answers are listed in the third column, on the right side of the table. Your choices for the first part and second part of the question will be recorded in the first and second columns of the table, respectively. Remember that you need to make a choice (only one of each column) for each of the first two vertical columns of the table—not one for each horizontal row.
 
Question 1
Question 2
 
 
 
Answer-Choice 1
 
 
Answer-Choice 2
 
 
Answer-Choice 3
 
 
Answer-Choice 4

Drop-Down Menus Type

In a drop-down menu, you can see multiple answer-choices of which you can only choose one.

Multi-Source Analysis Type

Here, multiple-sources of viewpoints are presented and questions are asked according to the viewpoints of each party. Each source is presented in the body of a single tab. Generally, there are up to 3 tabs, meaning 3 sources. The label of the table indicates the source of the viewpoint. You select the respective tab to view the respective viewpoint.
 
For Multi-Source Reasoning Questions, you will be given a variety of information that can include text, charts, tables, and graphs. The information is arranged on 2 or 3 tabs.
 
There are two question formats for Multi-Source Reasoning:
  • Multiple-choice questions.
  •  Multiple-dichotomous choice questions.
You will have 30-minutes to complete the Integrated Reasoning section, or an average of 2-minutes and 30-seconds to answer each multiple-choice or multiple-dichotomous choice question.
  • Decide whether a claim made in one source is supported or undetermined by information provided in another source.
  • Determine whether the information provided is supported or undetermined by information provided in another source.
  • Determine whether the information provided is sufficient to justify a course of action.
  • Judge the strength of evidence offered in support of an argument or plan.
  • Identify errors or gaps in the information provided.

Multi-Part Verbal Type

Example
 
Tab 1: Historian
Tab 2: Critic
There is no direct evidence that timber was traded between the ancient nations of Poran and Nayal, but the fact that a law setting tariffs on timber imports from Poran was enacted during the third Nayalese dynasty does suggest that during that period a timber trade was conducted.
Your reasoning is flawed. During its third dynasty, Nayal may well have imported timber from Poran, but certainly on today’s statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage.
  1. The critic’s response to the historian’s reasoning does which of the following and why is it flawed?
What the Critic’s response does The Critic’s response is flawed because  
Implies an analogy between the present and the past.
Distinguishes between what has been established as a certainty and what has been established as a possibility.
Takes no account of the difference between a law’s enactment at a particular time and a law’s existence as part of a legal code at a particular time.
Accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian’s argument.
Produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty.

Row 1: Yes. The clause “certainly on today’s statute books there remain many laws regulating activities that were once common but in which people no longer engage” is drawing an analogy between what is common today and what the critic believes was common in the past. Select first column.

 
Row 2: No. Both the historian and the critic consider the tariff law as fact and see the existence of timber trade between Poral and Nayal as only a possibility. Therefore, the critic cannot respond to the historian by pointing out the difference between direct evidence giving certain information and indirect evidence providing only probabilities.
 
Row 3: Yes. The historian states that tariff laws were enacted during the third dynasty. The critic responds that sometimes laws remain on the books long after they cease being relevant, implying that the third-dynasty Nayalese laws were out-of-date. However, since the laws were enacted during the third dynasty, presumably they were relevant then. Thus, the critic’s reasoning is flawed. Select both columns of the row.
 
Row 4: No. In fact the critic is presuming just the opposite that the role laws played in Nayalese society was similar to their role in contemporary society. No selection in the row.
 
Row 5: No. It is flawed because it does not make a crucial distinction between the existence of statutes and their enactment.

The suitable responses are:
 
What the Critic’s response does The Critic’s response is flawed because  
Implies an analogy between the present and the past.
Distinguishes between what has been established as a certainty and what has been established as a possibility.
Takes no account of the difference between a law’s enactment at a particular time and a law’s existence as part of a legal code at a particular time.
Accepts without question the assumption about the purpose of laws that underlies the historian’s argument.
Produces evidence that is consistent with there not having been any timber trade between Poran and Nayal during the third Nayalese dynasty.

You may be beginning to realize that an Integrated Reasoning problem can be presented in many different forms:

 

Format

 

Source

ASSERTIVE TYPE

DATA SUFFICIENCY Type

Two Part Analysis

Drop-down menu

Multi-Source Analysis

Graphics Interpretation

 

 

 

 

 

Table Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

Flow-Charts

 

 

 

 

 

Hierarchical Data

 

 

 

 

 

Verbal Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

Logical Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Scenario

 

 

 

 

 





Test Your Skills Now!
Take a Quiz now
Reviewer Name