Critical Reasoning & Argument EvaluationStand-ups went daily and tickets rose 40% — find the assumption before the director banks the conclusion.
Critical Reasoning & Argument Evaluation measures how managers weigh arguments: hidden assumptions, what strengthens or weakens a claim, what must be true versus what merely sounds right. Eighteen items in 30 minutes — 13 keyed reasoning items and 5 meeting-room situations. Two banded competencies.
Arguments from real meetings, taken apart one premise at a time
A team closed forty percent more tickets in the quarter after moving to daily stand-ups, and a director concludes the stand-ups did it; you must name the assumption the conclusion rests on. Every shift supervisor at a food company holds a safety licence, some licence holders are auditors, and a named supervisor is described — which statement must be true? A four-sentence case for remote audits is given and you must identify its main conclusion. Then the situations: a peer proposes doubling ad spend because sales rose last time, you recall the earlier rise coincided with the festive season, and a decision is expected today.
All argument stems, passages and meeting scenarios are original constructions; no third-party test content is adapted. The thirteen keyed items are verified against a worked rationale, with distractors that are the tempting near-misses — the statement that is probably true but not necessarily, the premise mistaken for the conclusion, the evidence that would strengthen a different claim. The five situational items are graded on defensibility, so raising the confound diplomatically outranks both silence and a flat veto. Every explanation walks the logic, naming the inference form or the flaw.
The report scores Critical Thinking and Verbal Reasoning separately, banded from Emerging to Exceptional with coaching interpretations written for people who sit in decision meetings. The AI-written narrative describes your reasoning habits — whether you accept correlation as cause, over-read a syllogism, or spot the flaw but stay quiet. The question-by-question review explains all eighteen items, and the growth plan prioritises the lower competency with practices you can use in your next meeting: ask for the counterfactual, name the assumption aloud, separate the claim from the evidence.
What you walk away with
Critical Thinking covers assumptions, strengtheners, weakeners and valid inference; Verbal Reasoning covers whether you read the passage as written. Two banded bars show whether you misjudge arguments or misread them — different habits, different fixes.
The review explains each keyed item by the logic behind it — the unstated assumption, the converse error, the confound, the conclusion mistaken for a premise — so a miss becomes a named reasoning pattern you will recognise the next time a proposal relies on it.
For the five situations you see how each response was ranked and why: what raising the confound protects, what silence costs, what a flat veto destroys. Speaking up well, not just thinking well, is part of the score and the explanation shows the difference.
The narrative names your recurring habit and the plan converts it into practices — ask for the counterfactual, state the assumption aloud, separate claim from evidence — prioritised by whichever competency scored lower and pointing to the deeper tests when you are ready.
The report, in three panels
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Every competency this test declares, scored from the items tagged to it — so the shape is yours, not a template.
Band edges at 40, 60 and 80. Each band carries its own coaching interpretation for that competency.
Built for
- Team leads through general managers who weigh proposals, vendor claims and data stories in meetings
- Candidates for strategy, consulting, product and analytics roles with a reasoning round
- Hiring panels wanting a scored critical-reasoning exercise before the final interview
- Professionals preparing for management-entrance or graduate-school reasoning sections
Every bad decision in a meeting rested on an assumption nobody named.
Eighteen items in 30 minutes — every inference explained and every meeting-room response ranked.
Take free · full report ₹150 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
How you evaluate arguments as they arrive in meetings: spotting the hidden assumption a conclusion depends on, judging which evidence strengthens or weakens a claim, identifying the main conclusion of a short case, and separating what must be true from what merely sounds right. Eighteen items in 30 minutes — thirteen keyed reasoning items and five meeting-room situations. It is for team leads through general managers and for candidates facing a reasoning round.
The thirteen keyed items have one answer each, verified against a worked rationale, with distractors built from the tempting near-misses — probably true rather than necessarily true, a premise dressed as a conclusion. The five situations are graded on defensibility, so both silence and a flat veto earn less than raising the flaw well. Scores roll into two banded competencies, Critical Thinking and Verbal Reasoning, and an overall 0–100 score. The bands describe where you stand, not a cut-off.
Thirty minutes for 18 items in one sitting. The report is generated immediately from your responses: overall banded score, radar and banded bars for the two competencies with coaching interpretations, an AI-written narrative of your reasoning habits, strengths and development areas, a prioritised growth plan and a question-by-question review naming the inference or flaw behind every item. The price covers everything; there is nothing further to unlock.
Candidates should study the named patterns behind their misses, practise stating the assumption aloud before agreeing with a claim, and retake before a reasoning round or case interview. Hiring panels use the two bands to compare candidates for strategy, product and analytics roles and bring one situation into the interview. Managers use the growth plan as a set of habits for their next decision meeting.
Yes. Assumptions, inference forms, confounds and conclusion-spotting are the same in any language of business, and the fictional companies and meeting scenarios carry no regional convention. The formats follow international critical-reasoning testing conventions, and bands describe performance rather than rank against a national group. The test is priced in INR and USD, with the live price shown on this page.
Numerical, verbal, logical, abstract, spatial, data and workplace-judgment banks — each an original item bank with every rule stated in the explanation, scored per competency and reported with a banded profile and a growth plan. Sit one, or build a battery from several.
See the aptitude catalogue →Methodology: All argument stems, passages and meeting scenarios are original AssessAll constructs; no adapted third-party test content. Every key is verified against a worked rationale.