InnoviCatInnoviCat Skills

Critical Thinking

Start Practicing View Example Questions →

Critical thinking tests measure your ability to evaluate arguments, identify unstated assumptions, spot logical fallacies, and assess the strength of evidence. These skills are essential for professional roles that require sound judgment and analytical reasoning.

Our curated argument sets cover four key areas: identifying assumptions, spotting logical flaws, evaluating evidence, and drawing valid conclusions from premises. Each question presents a realistic argument or claim and asks you to analyze it systematically.

All questions are generated locally in your browser. Your progress and answers are stored only on your device — we never collect any personal data.

Key Patterns & Formats

Identifying Assumptions

Finding unstated premises that an argument depends on.

Argument: P → C (assumes A); if A is false, P → C may not hold

Spotting Logical Flaws

Identifying common logical fallacies such as correlation-causation confusion, hasty generalization, and false dilemma.

Various invalid inference forms (e.g., P → Q, Q ⊢ P is affirming the consequent)

Evaluating Evidence

Assessing which evidence strengthens, weakens, or is irrelevant to a claim.

Claim C; Evidence E: E strengthens C, E weakens C, or E is irrelevant to C

Drawing Conclusions

Identifying which conclusion logically follows from a set of given premises.

Given premises P1, P2, ..., Pn: find conclusion C such that P1 ∧ P2 ∧ ... ∧ Pn → C

Solving Strategies

  • Ask: 'What must be true for this conclusion to follow from the premises?'
  • Look for gaps between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn
  • Check if the argument treats correlation as causation
  • Identify any unstated link between the subject and the predicate
  • Check if the conclusion follows logically from the premises
  • Look for reasoning that reverses conditional logic (affirming the consequent)
  • Watch for single examples used to draw broad conclusions (anecdotal evidence)
  • Identify arguments that present only two options when more exist (false dilemma)

Common Pitfalls

  • Confusing an assumption with a conclusion — the assumption is what is taken for granted, not what is argued
  • Selecting a statement that is merely related to the topic rather than one the argument depends on
  • Missing implicit causal assumptions when the argument jumps from correlation to causation
  • Assuming a fallacy makes the conclusion false — a flawed argument can still have a true conclusion
  • Labeling a strong argument as fallacious because you disagree with the conclusion
  • Confusing different fallacy types (e.g., calling a false dilemma a straw man)

Frequently Asked Questions

Critical thinking tests assess your ability to analyze arguments objectively. You evaluate whether conclusions follow from premises, identify hidden assumptions, spot logical fallacies, and determine which evidence strengthens or weakens a claim. Common formats include the Watson Glaser test used by law firms and consulting companies.
Critical thinking tests are widely used by law firms, management consulting companies (McKinsey, Bain, BCG), financial services, and graduate programs. The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is one of the most common formats, testing recognition of assumptions, evaluation of arguments, and deduction.
Practice identifying common logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma). When reading arguments, ask: What assumptions are being made? Does the evidence actually support the conclusion? Are there alternative explanations? Regular practice with structured exercises like these builds the habit of systematic analysis.

Sources & References

Identifying Assumptions

Identifying Assumptions
Argument: P → C (assumes A); if A is false, P → C may not hold
'Sales rose after the ad campaign, so the campaign was effective.' Assumes: the sales increase was caused by the campaign, not by seasonal trends or other factors.
'This candidate has 20 years of experience, so they are the best choice.' Assumes: years of experience are the most important criterion for the role.
'Students who eat breakfast score higher on tests, so we should provide free breakfast.' Assumes: eating breakfast directly causes higher test scores.
'This medicine is natural, so it is safe for everyone.' What assumption does this argument rely on?
  1. 1
    Identify the premise: The medicine is naturalPremise
  2. 2
    Identify the conclusion: It is safe for everyoneConclusion
  3. 3
    Ask: What must be true for 'natural' to guarantee 'safe'?Bridge the gap
  4. 4
    The assumption is: natural products are inherently safeUnstated assumption
Refs:Fisher, Alec. 'Critical Thinking: An Introduction', Cambridge University Press, 2011

Spotting Logical Flaws

Spotting Logical Flaws
Various invalid inference forms (e.g., P → Q, Q ⊢ P is affirming the consequent)
Affirming the consequent: 'All successful people wake up early. John wakes up early. Therefore John will be successful.'
Anecdotal evidence: 'My grandfather smoked and lived to 95, so smoking cannot be that bad.'
False dilemma: 'Either we support this bill or the economy will collapse.'
'My grandfather smoked his whole life and lived to 95. Smoking can't be that bad for you.' What is the logical flaw?
  1. 1
    Identify the evidence: one person smoked and lived longSingle case
  2. 2
    Identify the conclusion: smoking is not that harmfulBroad claim
  3. 3
    Notice the gap: one case is used to dismiss statistical trends from millions of peopleAnecdotal evidence
  4. 4
    The flaw is using a single anecdote to refute established statistical evidenceHasty generalization from anecdote
Refs:Hamblin, C.L. 'Fallacies', Methuen, 1970

Evaluating Evidence

Evaluating Evidence
Claim C; Evidence E: E strengthens C, E weakens C, or E is irrelevant to C
Claim: 'Remote work increases productivity.' Weakening evidence: 'A survey of 5,000 remote workers showed greater distraction and longer hours without increased output.'
Claim: 'School uniforms improve grades.' Weakening evidence: 'A 10-year study of 1,000 schools found no significant grade differences.'
Claim: 'Tourism benefits local economies.' Irrelevant evidence: 'Global tourism grew by 5% last year.'
Claim: 'School uniforms improve academic performance.' Which evidence most weakens this claim?
  1. 1
    Identify the claim: uniforms lead to better gradesCore claim
  2. 2
    A 10-year study of 1,000 schools found no grade differences between uniform and non-uniform schoolsDirect contradiction
  3. 3
    This is a large, long-term study that directly measures the claimed outcomeHigh-quality evidence
  4. 4
    It weakens the claim because it directly shows no effect where one was claimedWeakens
Refs:Cottrell, Stella. 'Critical Thinking Skills', Palgrave Macmillan, 2017

Drawing Conclusions

Drawing Conclusions
Given premises P1, P2, ..., Pn: find conclusion C such that P1 ∧ P2 ∧ ... ∧ Pn → C
Premises: 'Renewable energy costs dropped 80% in 10 years' + 'Coal plants are closing due to cost.' Conclusion: 'Economics is driving the shift from coal to renewables.'
Premises: 'Traffic doubled in 5 years' + 'Public transit cut service by 30%.' Conclusion: 'Reduced public transit likely contributed to increased congestion.'
Premises: 'E-book sales plateaued' + 'Physical book sales rose 5% annually.' Conclusion: 'Readers continue to value physical books despite digital availability.'
Premises: 'Traffic congestion has doubled in 5 years.' 'Public transit has cut service by 30%.' Which conclusion follows?
  1. 1
    Premise 1: Traffic congestion doubledIncreasing congestion
  2. 2
    Premise 2: Public transit cut service by 30%Less transit
  3. 3
    Connect: fewer transit options push people toward drivingCausal link
  4. 4
    Conclusion: reduced transit likely contributed to increased congestionModerate, supported conclusion
Refs:Ennis, Robert H. 'Critical Thinking', Prentice Hall, 1996