Critical Thinking Test: Questions and Tips

A critical thinking test checks whether you can separate what a text proves from what it merely suggests: spot hidden assumptions, judge inferences, follow strict logic and weigh arguments. The best-known version is the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Pearson TalentLens), used by many graduate employers, especially in law. It has 40 items in about 30 minutes across five sections. Many general ability tests, including SHL's, mix the same skills into single-choice items such as "Which assumption underlies the argument?". This guide explains both formats and gives original practice questions for every section with worked answers.

Key facts

What critical thinking tests look like

The Watson-Glaser format

Each item gives you a short passage or statement followed by one or more proposed conclusions. You judge each one using only the information given, never outside knowledge. The answer options depend on the section:

TalentLens notes that test forms may differ slightly in difficulty and that this is accounted for in scoring, so the raw number correct is not compared directly. Some employers still use older, longer forms, so check your invitation.

Argument items inside SHL General Ability

In SHL's 30-item General Ability test (German version, 2026), argument items appear between maths, logic and figure items. The stimulus is a three- or four-sentence argument on the left; the question and five radio buttons sit on the right. Two question stems appeared:

• "Welche Annahme liegt der Argumentation zugrunde?" (Which assumption underlies the argument?)
• "Welche Aussage, falls sie wahr ist, bekräftigt die Argumentation?" (Which statement, if true, strengthens the argument?)

The correct answers followed recurring patterns: the hidden premise that nobody else is involved (only the people named did the work), that the people counted are all different (no one counted twice), and that perception matches reality (customers judge quality correctly). The wrong options were typically statements that weaken the argument, statements that contradict its own wording (an option requiring "both A and B" when the argument said "either A or B"), and statements that sound sensible but play no role in the conclusion.

SHL also places strict logic items ("Which statement must be true?") in the same test; they are covered in the deductive reasoning guide.

Original practice questions for each section

1. Inference

Passage: Before January, a city library averaged 1,000 weekday visits per day and closed at 18:00. In January it extended weekday opening to 21:00. From January to March, evening visits (after 18:00) averaged 140 per day, most of them by people aged 18–30. Total weekday visits were 9 % higher than in the same months a year earlier.

Rate each statement: True, Probably true, Insufficient data, Probably false, False.

a) Some people visited the library after 18:00 between January and March. b) The extension was introduced mainly to attract younger visitors. c) Fewer than half of the evening visitors were aged 18–30. d) Some evening visitors would otherwise have come earlier in the day. e) The evening hours were so unpopular that the library is likely to drop them.

Answers: a) True. b) Insufficient data. c) False. d) Probably true. e) Probably false.

• a) is stated directly (140 evening visits per day).
• b) The passage says who came, not why the hours changed. No information either way.
• c) contradicts "most of them by people aged 18–30".
• d) If all 140 evening visits were new, visits would be about 14 % higher; they are only 9 % higher, so daytime visits fell by roughly 50 a day. The most likely reason is that some people switched to the evening. It is not certain (daytime visits could have fallen for another reason), so "probably", not "true".
• e) 140 visits a day and higher totals suggest the hours are used. Not impossible, but unlikely.

2. Recognition of assumptions

Statement: "We should hold our weekly team meetings online. Then nobody has to travel, and attendance will go up."

Is each assumption made or not made?

1. Travel is currently a reason some people miss the meeting.
2. Online meetings cost less than meetings in person.
3. Team members are able to join an online meeting.
4. Meetings in person are less productive than online meetings.

Answers: 1 made, 2 not made, 3 made, 4 not made.

• The claim that attendance will rise only makes sense if travel keeps some people away (1) and if they can actually join online (3).
• Cost (2) and productivity (4) are never mentioned and the argument doesn't need them, even if they might be true.

3. Deduction

Premises: All the auditors on the project speak French. Some of the auditors on the project are based in Brussels.

Does each conclusion follow?

1. Some people based in Brussels speak French.
2. Everyone on the project who speaks French is an auditor.
3. Some auditors on the project are not based in Brussels.
4. Some French speakers on the project are based in Brussels.

Answers: 1 follows, 2 does not follow, 3 does not follow, 4 follows.

• The Brussels auditors are auditors, so they speak French: 1 and 4 follow.
• 2 reverses "all auditors speak French"; non-auditors may speak French too.
• 3 is the classic "some" trap: "some are in Brussels" does not exclude "all are in Brussels".

4. Interpretation

Passage: In a survey of 2,000 employees of a logistics firm, 64 % of those who worked mostly from home rated their job satisfaction as high, against 48 % of those who worked mostly on site. Home-based staff were on average older and had been with the firm longer.

Does each conclusion follow beyond reasonable doubt?

1. In the survey, a larger share of mostly-home workers than of mostly-on-site workers reported high satisfaction.
2. Working from home causes higher job satisfaction at this firm.
3. Most surveyed employees who worked mostly from home did not report high satisfaction.

Answers: 1 follows, 2 does not follow, 3 does not follow.

• 1 restates the data.
• 2 turns a difference into a cause, while the passage itself names two other differences (age, tenure).
• 3 contradicts the 64 %.

5. Evaluation of arguments

Question: Should the city make public transport free for everyone under 18?

Is each argument strong or weak?

1. Yes. Families with teenagers would save money, and more young people would take the bus instead of being driven, which would cut traffic at school times.
2. No. Some teenagers already walk to school.
3. No. The lost ticket income would have to be covered from the city budget, which would mean cuts elsewhere or higher taxes.
4. Yes. Free things are always popular.

Answers: 1 strong, 2 weak, 3 strong, 4 weak.

A strong argument is important and directly related to the question. 1 and 3 give real, relevant consequences (you don't have to agree with them). 2 is true but trivial: it doesn't affect the many who don't walk. 4 is a sweeping generalisation that says nothing about this policy.

6. SHL-style: the underlying assumption

"Last quarter our main competitor cut its prices by 10 %, and its market share fell. So price cuts do not help market share in our industry."

Which assumption underlies the argument? (1) The competitor's market share would not have fallen even further without the price cut. (2) Competitors always match each other's price cuts. (3) Market share is the most important measure of success. (4) The competitor's products are of higher quality than ours. (5) Customers in this industry do not react to price.

Answer: (1). The argument treats "share fell after the cut" as proof the cut didn't help. That only works if nothing else was pulling the share down, i.e. if the share would not have fallen further anyway. (5) is not an assumption but the conclusion in other words; (2), (3) and (4) are not needed.

7. SHL-style: which statement weakens the argument?

"Staff who attended the optional time-management course completed 15 % more tasks the next quarter than staff who did not. The course should therefore be made compulsory for everyone."

Which statement, if true, most weakens the argument? (1) The course is taught by an external trainer. (2) The staff who chose to attend were already the most productive before the course. (3) Some staff prefer online courses. (4) Task completion is recorded automatically. (5) The course takes two days.

Answer: (2). If the attendees were already the top performers, the 15 % gap may say nothing about the course (self-selection). (4) slightly strengthens the data; the others are beside the point.

Traps and how to avoid them

• Outside knowledge. Judge only what the passage says, even if you know the topic, and treat the passage as true even where it conflicts with what you know.
• True versus probably true. Pick "True" only when the passage makes the statement certain. If it is merely the best explanation, it is "Probably true".
• Insufficient data versus probably false. If the passage gives no hint either way, it is "Insufficient data", not "Probably false".
• "Some" means at least one, possibly all. "Some auditors are in Brussels" does not mean "some are not".
• Reversed statements. "All A are B" never gives "all B are A".
• Correlation dressed up as cause. Look for a named second difference (age, prior performance, season).
• The restated conclusion. An option that repeats the conclusion in new words is not an assumption.
• Options that weaken. In "Which assumption…?" items, the strongest-sounding option is often an objection to the argument, not its premise.
• The argument's own wording. If an argument says "either raise quality or cut price", an option requiring both contradicts it.
• Emotional or sweeping arguments. Words like "always", "everyone" or "obviously" usually mark a weak argument.
• Time. Watson-Glaser gives about 45 seconds per item; in SHL's mixed test you have about 72 seconds, and argument items should take less than that so you can bank time for tables.

How to prepare for a critical thinking test

A seven-day plan, about 6 hours in total:

If your employer uses SHL, also practise the mixed format in the SHL guide; if it uses the Watson-Glaser itself, see the Watson-Glaser guide.

Sources

• Pearson TalentLens, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (40 items, 30 to 40 minutes, five subtests, three reported areas)
• iPREP, Watson-Glaser practice guide (section answer options)
• SHL, Verify G+ Test Fact Sheet (deductive reasoning includes identifying strengths and weaknesses of arguments)

執筆：

Adrian、専門家

心理学修士、7年の受験歴。

最終更新：Oct 1, 2026