Analytical Reasoning Practice Questions

Use these Analytical Reasoning practice questions to review logical conclusions, assumptions, flaws in reasoning, evidence, and argument structure. After answering each question, open the explanation to see why the correct answer follows from the information given.

Analytical Reasoning Topics Covered

  • Drawing valid conclusions
  • Identifying assumptions
  • Finding flaws in reasoning
  • Recognizing unsupported claims
  • Evaluating evidence
  • Understanding cause and effect
  • Using deductive reasoning
  • Distinguishing strong arguments from weak ones

Analytical Reasoning Practice Questions

1. Gigi, a geology student, collected field samples of rocks. On one day, she observed that every rock she collected was quartz, and she collected every piece of quartz she saw. Which of the following can be concluded from her observations?

  1. The only rocks Gigi saw that day were quartz.
  2. Gigi collected all of the rocks she saw that day.
  3. There were no other kinds of rocks in the field that day.
  4. Gigi did not collect any rocks other than quartz that day.
  5. Gigi did not see any rocks other than quartz that day.
Show Answer

Answer: D. Gigi did not collect any rocks other than quartz that day.

The statement says every rock Gigi collected was quartz. Therefore, she did not collect any non-quartz rocks.

However, this does not prove that quartz was the only kind of rock she saw or that no other rocks existed in the field.

2. “We cannot allow our workers to organize, because if they have a union, the union will go on strike. Our company cannot afford the down time. Since a strike would prove catastrophic to our business, we must prevent unionization at all costs.” What is the flaw in the conclusion?

  1. In reality, unions very rarely or never go on strike.
  2. It overestimates the influence labor unions have.
  3. The motivations for a union strike are not stated.
  4. Down time due to a strike could ruin the business.
  5. It fails to consider the possibility of a compromise.
Show Answer

Answer: E. It fails to consider the possibility of a compromise.

The argument assumes that unionization will automatically lead to a strike.

That ignores other possible outcomes, such as negotiation or compromise. The reasoning jumps from union to strike without considering intermediate possibilities.

3. The diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) has increased exponentially in recent years. Some parents blame vaccinations, but scientific research has failed to reveal any connection. Which of the following would best clarify the statements above?

  1. It is the rate of diagnoses, not the number of cases, that has increased.
  2. New neuroimaging technology has enabled a higher rate of identification.
  3. Vaccinations have increased at the same rates and times as the diagnoses.
  4. Parents have intuition about their children that researchers do not.
  5. Scientific researchers have not looked in the right places for connections.
Show Answer

Answer: A. It is the rate of diagnoses, not the number of cases, that has increased.

The statement says diagnoses have increased. That does not necessarily mean the actual number of cases has increased at the same rate.

Choice A clarifies the difference between an increase in identification and an increase in occurrence.

4. Mr. Tramp has groomed his two grown children to inherit his vast corporation. He remarks that his son has the most comprehensive knowledge of the business, while his daughter exhibits superior skills in making common-sense decisions. He believes that together they will be able to successfully run the business. What assumption is inherent in this belief?

  1. Knowing the business is the essential requirement to run it.
  2. Common sense and business knowledge are both required.
  3. Tramp’s corporation is too vast for just one person to run it.
  4. Common sense is more important than business knowledge.
  5. Tramp’s children will be supported by trained company staff.
Show Answer

Answer: B. Common sense and business knowledge are both required.

Mr. Tramp points to one strength in each child and concludes that they can run the business together.

This assumes that both qualities are needed: business knowledge and common-sense decision-making.

5. Because my next follow-up doctor visit involves blood work, I will have a bruise afterward. For the statement above to be valid, which assumption is necessary?

  1. Techs often have difficulty getting blood from this patient’s veins.
  2. This patient has sometimes gotten a bruise after having blood work.
  3. This patient has gotten a bruise every time after blood was drawn.
  4. It will take several attempts for the tech to get a needle into a vein.
  5. The patient will experience pain when the tech tries to draw blood.
Show Answer

Answer: C. This patient has gotten a bruise every time after blood was drawn.

The statement predicts with certainty that blood work will cause a bruise.

For that conclusion to be valid, the argument needs a stronger assumption than sometimes or often. It must assume that this always happens after blood is drawn.

6. “Free enterprise is characterized by competition, not monopoly, within an industry. The only choice for an electric utility for consumers in some areas is the ABC Power Company.” Which of the following conclusions can be made based on this statement?

  1. A monopoly is defined as having no competitors anywhere.
  2. The ABC Power Company exemplifies free enterprise.
  3. There is no family competition in the ABC Power Company.
  4. The ABC Power Company has a monopoly in some areas.
  5. The ABC Power Company is a business that is publicly owned.
Show Answer

Answer: D. The ABC Power Company has a monopoly in some areas.

The statement says consumers in some areas have only one choice for electric utility service.

If there is only one provider in those areas, then ABC Power Company has a monopoly there.

7. A reporter pointed out to his interviewee that a major wire service and a prominent newspaper found no evidence that the interviewee had reported for military service in a certain place and time period. The interviewee responded that the sources were “wrong” because they disagreed with his version of the events. He asserted that even though there was no evidence, he did report for service. Otherwise, he would not have received an honorable discharge. The fallacy in this reasoning is

  1. that the evidence and the interviewee’s conclusion are contradictory.
  2. that the evidence is right, and therefore the conclusion must be wrong.
  3. that the evidence does not contradict the conclusion of the interviewee.
  4. that the evidence is wrong, so the interviewee’s conclusion must be right.
  5. that the evidence and the conclusion are contradictory, so the evidence is wrong.
Show Answer

Answer: E. that the evidence and the conclusion are contradictory, so the evidence is wrong.

The interviewee rejects the evidence simply because it conflicts with his conclusion.

The contradiction alone does not prove the evidence is wrong. The reasoning assumes the conclusion is correct and dismisses contrary evidence for that reason.

8. A teacher asks each student in her class to write a short story that is relevant to his or her everyday life to impart a real-life quality. One student wants to write his story about the main character in one of his favorite movies. Which of the following is the best logical argument against this idea?

  1. Using a fictional character is unlikely to reflect the student’s own everyday life.
  2. Using the same writing methods results in stories with varying levels of effectiveness.
  3. Using a movie character without obtaining permission would violate copyright laws.
  4. Using self-reflection is necessary for writing short stories that are truly original.
  5. Using valuable, instructional themes is more important than character popularity.
Show Answer

Answer: A. Using a fictional character is unlikely to reflect the student’s own everyday life.

The assignment asks for a story relevant to the student’s everyday life.

A story about a favorite movie character may be interesting, but it is less likely to satisfy the requirement that the story reflect the student’s own real-life experience.

9. “This domestic red table wine is of excellent quality and is very affordable. It is comparable to an imported red table wine that costs three times as much. You won’t be able to tell them apart by taste. However, if you don’t want your guests to know which wine you are serving, you can decant it into a carafe so they don’t see the label.” What assumption is inherent in this promotional statement?

  1. Most red table wine is produced domestically.
  2. Imported wine is a status symbol to some people.
  3. The duties on imported wines raise their prices.
  4. Domestic and imported wines have different tastes.
  5. Red table wine tastes better when served from a carafe.
Show Answer

Answer: B. Imported wine is a status symbol to some people.

The statement says the domestic wine tastes comparable to the imported wine, but then suggests hiding the label.

This assumes some guests may judge the wine based on whether it is domestic or imported, not just by how it tastes.

10. “All reptiles have scales. All snakes are reptiles, so all snakes have scales.” What is the basis of this argument?

  1. Inductive reasoning
  2. Special knowledge
  3. A logical syllogism
  4. Ambiguous terms
  5. Generalizations
Show Answer

Answer: C. A logical syllogism

This argument uses a syllogism: all members of one group have a trait, and another group belongs inside that first group.

The structure is: all A have C; all B are A; therefore, all B have C.

Here, reptiles are A, scales are C, and snakes are B.

How to Use These Analytical Reasoning Practice Questions

Answer each question before opening the explanation. Then compare your reasoning with the explanation to see whether your answer followed directly from the information given.

If you miss a question, identify the task type first. Ask whether the question is asking for a valid conclusion, an assumption, a flaw, or the best-supported interpretation of the evidence.

 

Last Updated: July 7, 2026