The Basics of Critical Reasoning For CLAT: A Closer Look

Introduction: Critical Reasoning For CLAT

Have you ever been in a discussion with someone and felt like you were just getting nowhere? Like no matter what you said, they just didn’t seem to get it? Or have you ever been in a situation where you were trying to figure something out, but no matter how hard you thought about it, you just couldn’t seem to come up with a good solution? If you have, then you know how frustrating it can be. But what if I told you that there was a way to improve your ability to have productive discussions and solve difficult problems? There is, and it’s called critical reasoning.

Critical reasoning is the ability to analyse arguments and to determine whether they are valid or not. It is an important skill to have not only for the CLAT exam, but for life in general. The ability to reason critically is important because it allows you to make better decisions. It allows you to see both sides of an argument and to evaluate the evidence. It also allows you to see the world in a more nuanced way and to understand the complexities of the world we live in.

What is critical reasoning?

Critical reasoning is the process of evaluating arguments and identifying flaws in reasoning. It is a skill that can be applied in many different situations, from everyday conversations to legal disputes.

The basics of critical reasoning

There are three main elements to critical reasoning: premises, conclusions, and inferences. A premise is a statement that is assumed to be true. For example, “All men are mortal.” This is a premise because it is an assumption that we make in order to reach a conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that follows from the premises. For example, “Socrates is a man.” This is a conclusion because it is something that we can infer from the premise “All men are mortal.” An inference is the process of reasoning from the premises to the conclusion. In the example above, the inference would be “Socrates is mortal.”

Our Youtube CLAT Sessions

How to identify argument flaws

There are many different types of argument flaws, but some of the most common are:

– False dilemma:

This is when an argument presents two options as if they are the only possible options, when in reality there are other options. For example, “Either you are for us or you are against us.”

– Hasty generalization:

This is when an argument makes a sweeping statement based on too small of a sample size. For example, “All teenagers are lazy.”

– Slippery slope:

This is when an argument suggests that one thing will lead to another, without any evidence to support that claim. For example, “If we allow gay marriage, then next thing you know people will be marrying animals!”

– Correlation vs. Causation:

There are many critical reasoning flaws that people can fall victim to when trying to determine the cause of something. Two of the most common errors are confusing correlation with causation, and vice versa.

It’s important to be able to distinguish between the two, as one can lead to false conclusions about the other. Correlation is when two things are related, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that one causes the other. For example, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks. Does this mean that eating ice cream causes shark attacks? Of course not!

Causation is when one thing directly causes another. So in order for causation to be present, there must first be a correlation. Let’s say that you notice that every time you eat ice cream, you get a headache.

Mistaking the two is a classic reasoning error. In simple words, just because two things happen together, doesn’t mean that one causes the other.

How to strengthen and weaken arguments

Once you know how to identify argument flaws, you can start to strengthen or weaken arguments by finding ways to fix those flaws. For example, let’s say you are presented with the following argument: “The company should not fire John. If they fire John, then morale will plummet, and if morale plummets, then productivity will suffer.” This argument has a false dilemma flaw. The company may have other options besides firing John that would not result in a drop in morale or productivity. To fix this flaw, you could add another option, such as “The company should not fire John. If they fire John, then morale will plummet, and if morale plummets, then productivity will suffer. The company could transfer John to another department.”

You can also weaken an argument by finding ways to make the premises less likely to be true. For example, let’s say you are presented with the following argument: “The company should not fire John. John is a hard worker, and if they fire him, then morale will plummet.” This argument has a hasty generalisation flaw. The argument is based on the premise that John is a hard worker, but we don’t know if this is true because we don’t have any evidence to support it. To fix this flaw, you could add evidence to support the premise, such as “The company should not fire John. John is a hard worker, and if they fire him, then morale will plummet. John has been with the company for 10 years and has never been late or missed a day of work.”

How to use critical reasoning on the CLAT

The CLAT is a test that is used to assess law school applicants. It consists of five sections: Reading Comprehension, Legal Reasoning, Logical Reasoning, Current Affairs and Quantitative Techniques.

The Logical Reasoning section consists of 28 – 32 questions, and those questions will be passage based critical reasoning questions.

Critical reasoning questions on the CLAT will often be presented as passages or arguments, and you will be asked to identify the conclusion, the premises, and the inferences. You will also be asked to strengthen or weaken the argument.

Tips for acing the critical reasoning section

Here are some tips for acing the critical reasoning section of the CLAT:

– Read the argument carefully. Don’t be afraid to read it more than once if you need to.

– Identify the conclusion, the premises, and the inferences.

– Strengthen or weaken the argument by finding ways to fix the flaws in the reasoning.

– Practice, practice, practice. The more you do it, the easier it will become.

Sample CLAT Critical Reasoning Question:

Read the CLAT passage carefully and answer the accompanying questions:

“This column once recounted how a leading Calcutta barrister, Sachin Chaudhuri, dissuaded a European adventuress from suing me for defamation by citing another distinguished lawyer, N.C. Chatterjee, who famously insisted that there could be no defamation unless the complainant’s own “famation” was impeccable. That elusive attribute is in question now in London where a successful defamation suit warns that even a venerable institution like the British Broadcasting Corporation can throw famation to the winds when it scents a scoop.

The BBC is trying desperately to distance itself from that abysmal dereliction of values.by shifting the guilt to an ingenious but utterly unscrupulous employee called Martin Bashir who interviewed Princess Diana on November 20, 1995. Sadly, Bashir is effectively incapable of defending himself, which probably helps. Google says “he has been diagnosed with a brain tumour affecting his pituitary gland, was reported to be ‘seriously unwell’ with the coronavirus in October 2020, and underwent quadruple heart bypass surgery in late 2020 and further surgical procedures in spring 2021.” Even if he had been in sound health, Bashir’s Pakistani origins and antecedents in an unfashionable London suburb might put off classy British audiences rather like Rishi Sunak’s ethnicity, teetotalism and addiction to the Bhagwad Gita may explain his falling rating among the blue-rinsed women in twin sets and pearls among 160,000 Conservative Party members.

History is made in-bed, it’s been said,,Take away the bed and history evaporates. That was a risk that even the staid BBC was apparently not prepared to take”

(source: Dishing out deceit – Telegraph India – https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/dishing-out-deceit-the-line-between-journalism-and-propaganda-is-thin/cid/1878520)

1. Which of the following is a correct expression of the author’s opinion as stated in the passage?
(a) History is created by those who are prone to libel.
(b) Character assassination if done incorrectly will put you in the bad side of history.
(c) History is operated and controlled by those who are impeccable themselves.
(d) History cannot be compartmentalised to allow imaginary happenings to take place.

2. Read the following and select the best answer.
I. N.C Chatterjee was of the opinion that defamation suits can be countered by piling up more infamy on the complainant.
II. The BBC has concealed their guilt by scapegoating Bashir.

I is true.
II is true.
Both are true.
Both are false.

3. Which of the following is a valid inference?
Conservative party members’ character assessment is guided by snobbery.
Society does not permit impeccability to thrive.
Institutions are hypocritical about holding on to values
Lawyers thrive by twisting the character of their opponent.

4. What is the main purpose of the passage?
To show the process of history making.
To show how corrupt the BBS is as an institution.
To show how big institutions are a study in hypocrisy.
To show how endangered character impeccability is.

Answer Key: 1. B 2.C 3.A 4.D

Conclusion

Critical reasoning is a skill that can be used in many different situations to improve your ability to have productive discussions and solve difficult problems. If you’re looking to improve your critical reasoning skills, then there’s no better place to start than with The OPUS CLAT Coaching Programs.

By becoming familiar with the different types of argument flaws and how to fix them, you can start to strengthen and weaken arguments. And with practice, you will be able to apply these skills in any situation.

Further resources

If you want to learn more about critical reasoning, then check out these resources:

The OPUS Critical Reasoning Handbook

The GMAT Verbal Review for Critical Reasoning

The Power of Logic: How to Think Like a Lawyer by Anthony Weston

Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

How to Read a Paragraph by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

Register for A Free Demo Class: