Notes Logical Reasoning
CLAT Syllabus for Logical Reasoning
Logical
Reasoning
The
Logical Reasoning section of the UG-CLAT 2020 will include a series of short
passages of about 300 words each. Each passage will be followed by one or more
questions that will require you to:
- Recognize
an argument, its premises and conclusions;
- Read and
identify the arguments set out in the passage;
- Critically
analyse patterns of reasoning, and assess how conclusions may depend on
particular premises or evidence;
- Infer what
follows from the passage and apply these inferences to new situations;
- Draw
relationships and analogies, identify contradictions and equivalence, and
assess the effectiveness of arguments.
This
section is devised to evaluate a candidate’s ability to analytically comprehend
different aspects of a situation or scenario and logically derive solutions. A
total of 20% questions out of grand total 150 questions are asked in this paper.
No visual questions are asked in the section. It covers a variety of logical
aptitude questions including syllogism, logical sequences, analogies, etc.
It
contains different types of reasoning questions which are intended to judge
analytical and logical reasoning skills of the candidate.
The logical reasoning questions can
be verbal or non-verbal:
In verbal logical
reasoning questions, the concepts and problems are expressed in words. The candidates
are required to read and understand the given text or paragraph and according
choose the right answer from the given options.
In non-verbal logical
reasoning questions, the concepts and problems are expressed in the
form of figures, images or diagrams and the candidates are required to
understand them before choosing the right answer out of the given options.
There
are two types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive:
·
Deductive - This type of reasoning provides complete
evidence of the truth of its conclusion. It uses a specific and accurate
premise that leads to a specific and accurate conclusion. With correct
premises, the conclusion to this type of argument is verifiable and correct.
·
Inductive - This type of reasoning is "bottom
up," meaning that it takes specific information and makes a broad
generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the
conclusion may not be accurate. This type of reasoning usually involves a rule
being established based on a series of repeated experiences.
By following parameter examples, you can
use logic to solve problems and to draw conclusions. Sometimes those
conclusions are correct conclusions and sometimes they are inaccurate. When you
use deductive reasoning, you arrive at correct logical arguments while
inductive reasoning may or may not provide you with a correct outcome:
Deductive
Logic
·
All
squares are rectangles. All rectangles have four sides. Logic, therefore, tells
you that all squares have four sides.
·
It
is dangerous to drive when it is snowing. It is snowing now. Logic tells you
that it would be dangerous to drive right now.
·
All
dogs have a good sense of smell. Bailey is a dog. Therefore, deductive
reasoning logic tells you that Bailey has a good sense of smell.
·
All
seniors are bad drivers. Mr. Jones is 70 years old and you won't let him drive
your car because you think he is an unsafe driver.
·
When
it rains the trees get wet. The trees are wet this morning, so it rained last
night.
·
All
trees have trunks. An oak tree is a tree. Therefore, deductive reasoning tells
you that the oak tree has a trunk.
Inductive
Logic
·
An
umbrella prevents you from getting wet in the rain. Ashley took her umbrella
and she did not get wet. In this case, you could use inductive reasoning to
offer an opinion that it was probably raining. Your concluson, however, would
not necessarily be accurate because Ashley would have remained dry whether it
rained and she had an umbrella, or whether it did not rain at all.
·
Every
three year old you see at the park every afternoon spends most of their time
crying and screaming. Your conclusion is that all three year olds spend their
afternoon screaming.
·
Every
house that burned down on the block was caused by faulty wiring. You conclusion
is that all homes on the block have faulty wiring.
·
Red
lights prevent accidents. Mike did not have an accident, therefore Mike stopped
at a red light. This is an example of inductive reasoning; but, it is faulty
reasoning because Mike might not have encountered any traffic signals at all.
Therefore, he might have been able to avoid accidents even without stopping at
a red light.
Notes Logical
Reasoning Topic-Wise:
Chapter 1: Statement
& Assumptions
Chapter 2: Statement & Conclusions
Chapter 3: Strong & Weak Arguments
Chapter 4: Cause & Effect
Chapter 5: Assertion – Reason
Chapter 6: Syllogism
Chapter 7: Number test- Series
Chapter 8: Direction and distance test
Chapter 9: Coding and Decoding
Chapter 10: Blood Relationships
Chapter 11: Ranking
Chapter 12: Analogy
Chapter 13: Decision Making
Chapter 14: Alphabet Based Problems
Chapter 15: Puzzles & Seating Arrangement
Chapter 16: Clocks
Chapter 17: Calendars
