Verbal reasoning test practice
Verbal reasoning questions present a short passage and ask what it supports, what a word means in context, or which argument is weakest. You are asked to judge only from the text given, not from what you already know about the subject.
The Founding Season Pass is 149 SEK once for three months, for the first 20 members. See the pass.
Time pressure
The passages are short but the options are deliberately close, so the pressure comes from careful reading rather than speed alone. Reading the question before the passage saves a second pass.
Heuristics that transfer
- Answer from the passage only. An option that is true in the world but not stated is not supported.
- Read the question first, so you know whether you are looking for a claim, a meaning or a flaw.
- For a word in context, substitute each option into the sentence and keep the one that preserves the author's point.
- Watch for absolute words such as always, never and only; they rarely survive contact with the text.
- Separate what the author reports from what the author concludes before judging the argument.
Three worked examples
Try each question before opening the answer.
Example 1
A restaurant review reads: 'The soup arrived lukewarm, which was a shame, because every other dish that evening was served piping hot.' As used here, 'lukewarm' most nearly means:
Show the answer and worked method
Correct answer: mildly warm
The principle
A word-in-context question is answered by the contrast the sentence draws, since the contrasted term narrows the meaning available.
Steps
- The sentence contrasts the soup with dishes that were 'piping hot', implying the soup fell notably short of that.
- 'Mildly warm' captures a temperature well below piping hot without being cold, which fits the disappointment described.
Heuristic to carry forward
When a sentence sets up a contrast, choose the meaning that sits on the opposite or lesser side of that contrast.
Why each other answer is wrong
- perfectly seasoned
- Describes flavour rather than temperature, which is not what the sentence is discussing.
- extremely hot
- Repeats the meaning of the contrasted term 'piping hot' rather than describing the soup itself.
- very cold
- Describes a temperature colder than lukewarm actually means, overstating the contrast.
Example 2
A school newsletter reads: 'Attendance was sparse at the parents' evening, with barely a dozen families turning up out of the two hundred invited.' As used here, 'sparse' most nearly means:
Show the answer and worked method
Correct answer: thin or scanty
The principle
A word-in-context question is answered by the specific figures the sentence gives, since they pin down the scale intended by the word.
Steps
- The sentence reports barely a dozen families out of two hundred invited attended.
- This is a very small fraction of those invited, matching 'thin or scanty' rather than any sense of a full or ordinary turnout.
Heuristic to carry forward
When a sentence gives a count alongside a descriptive word, use the count to judge whether the word means more, less or the same as expected.
Why each other answer is wrong
- perfectly average
- Contradicts the small fraction reported; twelve out of two hundred is far below average attendance.
- noisy
- Describes volume of sound, which the sentence does not mention at all.
- enthusiastic
- Describes attitude, not the size of the turnout the sentence reports.
Example 3
A software company argues: 'Our new onboarding tutorial, introduced in January, is working, because the proportion of new users who are still active after 30 days has risen from 22 per cent to 35 per cent since it launched.' Which assumption must hold for this argument to be sound?
Show the answer and worked method
Correct answer: No other change made around January, such as a pricing update or a marketing shift towards more engaged users, accounts for the rise in 30-day retention.
The principle
Attributing a change to one specific intervention assumes no other change introduced around the same time could account for the same result.
Steps
- The argument credits the tutorial with the retention rise because the rise followed its launch.
- If a different January change, such as a marketing shift attracting more engaged users, could equally explain higher 30-day retention, the tutorial would not be shown to be the cause.
- The argument therefore needs it to be false that some other change explains the rise, for the tutorial to be credited.
Heuristic to carry forward
Before crediting one change for a result that followed it, check whether another change introduced at the same time could produce the identical result.
Why each other answer is wrong
- Every new user who completed the tutorial became active for at least 30 days.
- States a stronger claim than the argument needs; the argument only needs the tutorial to explain the rise in proportion, not for every completer to be retained.
- The onboarding tutorial takes less than ten minutes to complete.
- Concerns how long the tutorial takes, which has no bearing on whether it, rather than something else, caused the retention rise.
- The company's total number of new users increased after January.
- Concerns the volume of new users, not the proportion retained, which is the figure the argument is about.
Every question in the bank has a verified answer key and a worked solution.
Keep going
Related guides: A word in context: fit for habitation, Correlation versus causation in a pilot scheme, or all worked examples.
Other test types: Numerical reasoning, Logical reasoning, Abstract reasoning. For timed shape matching, try Shapefinder.