GMAT Focus Edition · GRE & GMAT Analytical Reasoning
GMAT Verbal Reasoning
Reading comprehension and critical reasoning without sentence correction.
Eight concepts. GMAT Focus Verbal is one of three equally weighted sections — Reading Comprehension and Critical Reasoning only, with Sentence Correction gone — so the marks sit in argument structure and text-supported answers, not grammar rules.
- GMAT Focus Edition
- Medium level
- 8 concepts
- 5 practice questions
1Focus Verbal: RC and CR only
The GMAT Focus Verbal section contains only Reading Comprehension and Critical Reasoning — Sentence Correction was removed in the Focus edition. Prep time that used to go to idiom lists and modifier drills now belongs to mapping passages and splitting arguments.
Treat every stem as one of those two jobs. If the prompt quotes a short argument and asks how to strengthen, weaken, or find an assumption, you are in Critical Reasoning. If it attaches a passage and asks about main idea, detail, function, or inference, you are in Reading Comprehension.
Figure. Focus Verbal is RC and CR only. Sentence Correction is gone — grammar drills do not raise this section score.
| Type | Stem cue | What you do |
|---|---|---|
| Critical Reasoning | short argument; strengthen / weaken / assumption / inference | Split conclusion from premises; name the gap; test options against that gap |
| Reading Comprehension | passage attached; main idea / detail / function / inference | Map purpose and paragraph jobs; answer only from the text |
A Focus Verbal item quotes three sentences of argument and asks which option most weakens the conclusion. Which prep skill does the item test?
- Sentence Correction idiom and modifier rules
- Critical Reasoning: attack the premise–conclusion bridge
- Reading Comprehension main-idea mapping of a long passage
A short argument plus a weaken stem is Critical Reasoning. Sentence Correction is gone on Focus Verbal, so idiom drills do not answer the item. Main-idea mapping belongs to passage-based RC, not a three-sentence CR prompt.
2Split conclusion from premises
Every Critical Reasoning item is a short argument. Separate the conclusion — the main claim the author wants you to accept — from the premises that are offered as support. Wrong choices often attack a side fact while leaving the conclusion untouched.
State the conclusion in your own words before you read the options. Until that claim is named, you cannot tell whether an option strengthens, weakens, or merely restates background.
Figure. Split the claim (conclusion) from the reasons (premises). Names and dates are scenery until an option actually uses them.
How to label the argument
- Find the claimLook for recommendation language (should, must, will) or a prediction the author pushes — that line is usually the conclusion.
- List the supportPremises are the facts or reports offered as reasons. They are not the claim itself.
- Ignore sceneryNames, dates and company colour stay aside until an option actually uses them against the claim.
Argument: "Employees who use standing desks report less back pain, so the company should buy standing desks to cut sick days." What is the conclusion?
- Employees who use standing desks report less back pain
- The company should buy standing desks to cut sick days
- Back pain is unpleasant for employees
"Should buy… to cut sick days" is the recommendation the argument pushes — the conclusion. Less back pain is a premise offered as support. That back pain is unpleasant is outside the argument's stated chain.
3The assumption is the unstated bridge
Premises alone do not force the conclusion. The assumption is the unstated bridge the argument needs: Premises + Assumption ⇒ Conclusion. If you negate a real assumption, the argument falls apart; if negating a choice leaves the argument standing, that choice was not required.
On Focus Verbal, assumption stems ask you to name that bridge. Do not pick a restatement of a premise, and do not pick a stronger claim than the argument actually needs.
Figure. The assumption is the missing bridge: Premises + Assumption ⇒ Conclusion. Negating a real assumption collapses the argument.
How to find the bridge
- Name both sidesWrite conclusion and premises in short clauses so the gap between them is visible.
- Ask what is missingWhat must be true for those premises to support that conclusion — often a causal or scope link?
- Negation testNegate the candidate assumption. If the argument collapses, keep it; if the argument still works, drop it.
"Students who study in groups score higher, so group study causes higher scores." Which assumption is required?
- Group study itself, not a shared trait of group-studiers, drives the higher scores
- Every student prefers group study to solo study
- Higher scores always come from longer study hours
The leap from "group-studiers score higher" to "group study causes higher scores" needs the cause to be the grouping, not a confounder like motivation. Universal preference and a claim about study hours are stronger than the argument needs and are not forced by the stem.
4Strengtheners close the specific gap
A strengthener supports the assumption or adds evidence that makes the conclusion more likely given the premises. It closes the specific logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion's claim — it does not merely praise the topic or assume the conclusion is already true.
If the argument says standing desks cut back pain and therefore cut sick days, a strengthener links back pain to absences. A choice that says "standing desks are popular" leaves the sick-day leap untouched.
Figure. A strengthener closes the specific leap from evidence to claim. Popularity or topic praise leaves the gap untouched.
How to strengthen
- Name the gapAfter labelling conclusion and premises, say in one line what still must be true.
- Prefer a linkKeep options that confirm that link or rule out a competing explanation for the same evidence.
- Reject restatementDrop choices that repeat the conclusion, cheer for the plan, or talk about a different outcome.
Argument: "Employees who use standing desks report less back pain, so the company should buy standing desks to cut sick days." Which statement most strengthens this?
- Standing desks are stylish and employees enjoy using them
- Back pain is the leading cause of sick days at the company
- Some employees already own standing desks at home
The gap is that less back pain must translate into fewer sick days. Linking back pain to absences closes that gap. Style and enjoyment, or home ownership, do not connect pain to sick days.
5Weakeners break the bridge
A weakener attacks the assumption or offers an alternative cause that explains the premises without the conclusion. For causal arguments, the favourite move is an alternative cause or a counterexample that severs premise from claim.
Target the gap between premise and conclusion — often an unstated causal assumption — not a random downside of the plan. If traffic fell after a subway opened, a simultaneous downtown toll can explain the drop without crediting the subway.
Figure. Weakeners cut the bridge or supply an alternative cause for the same evidence. Target the leap — not a random downside.
How to weaken
- Locate the leapName what the author treats as enough to force the conclusion.
- Break or rivalPrefer an option that undercuts that leap or supplies another cause for the same evidence.
- Stay in scopeReject choices that change population, timeframe, or topic so they never meet the argument.
| Stem | Job | Typical move |
|---|---|---|
| Strengthen | make the conclusion more likely | confirm the assumption or eliminate a rival cause |
| Weaken | make the conclusion less likely | break the bridge or introduce an alternative cause |
| Assumption | name what must be true | state the missing bridge; negation should collapse the argument |
"City traffic fell after a new subway opened, so the subway reduced traffic." Which most weakens this?
- A downtown toll and a fuel-price spike began the same week the subway opened
- Some riders still prefer driving when they travel across town
- The subway uses electricity generated partly from fossil fuels
A simultaneous toll and fuel spike are rival causes that can explain the traffic drop without the subway. That some people still drive does not undo a net reduction. Fuel source for the subway is off-scope for the traffic claim.
6Map main point and paragraph jobs
In Reading Comprehension, track the main point and paragraph functions rather than memorising every detail. Note where the author states a claim, supplies evidence, raises a contrast, or answers an objection.
When a viewpoint is immediately refuted, its role is to set up the author's rebuttal, not to state the author's own view. Function questions reward that map: the cited critic's objection is often a foil the next sentences knock down.
Figure. Map paragraph jobs, not every detail. A critic's objection often sets up the author's rebuttal — it is not the author's view.
How to map a passage
- Main point firstAfter one read, say the author's primary claim in one short sentence.
- Label each paragraphEvidence, contrast, example, concession, or conclusion — one job word each.
- Locate before answeringFor detail or function stems, return to the lines; do not answer from memory of a nearby sentence.
In a passage, the author cites a critic's objection and then presents data refuting it. What is the function of the objection?
- To state the author's own primary recommendation
- To introduce an opposing view the author then challenges
- To summarise the passage's final conclusion for the reader
An objection followed by refuting data is a foil: the author raises it to knock it down. It is not the author's own recommendation, and it is not the final conclusion.
7Answer from the passage, not beyond it
Correct RC answers are supported by the passage. Reject choices that require outside knowledge, shift the topic, or push beyond what is stated. Prephrase from the relevant lines, then match — do not read each choice cold and invent a story that might fit.
Inference stems still answer the passage, not the local sentence alone and not world knowledge. If you cannot point to the supporting stretch, the option is too strong.
Figure. Correct RC answers are licensed by the passage. Outside facts and stronger claims than the lines support are wrong even when they sound true.
How to keep answers text-bound
- Find the linesReturn to the paragraph the stem points at before opening the options.
- PrephraseSay what the lines force in your own words; then hunt that meaning among the choices.
- Kill scope creepDrop outside facts, new populations, and claims the passage never raises.
Passage line: "The new policy may have unintended effects." An inference choice says "The policy will certainly fail." Is that supported?
- Yes — unintended effects prove failure
- No — "may" is hedged and "certainly fail" goes beyond the text
- Yes — any unintended effect means the policy is useless
"May have unintended effects" does not force certain failure. The absolute wording and the leap to failure go beyond the hedged line. Usefulness is a different claim the passage never made.
8Half-right choices are wrong
Answers must be exactly supported; a half-right choice is wrong. Verify each option against the text or argument — an option that nails the topic but overshoots with always, never, or proves is still a miss on inference and attitude stems.
Precision beats speed at the end of the item: spend the last seconds checking whether every content word in the keyed choice is licensed. Extreme or out-of-scope wording is usually the trap, not a synonym of care.
Figure. A choice that nails the topic but overshoots with extreme wording is still wrong. Every content word must be licensed.
| Trap class | What it looks like | Why it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Out of scope | new topic, population, or timeframe | the passage or argument never raised it |
| Too extreme | always / never / proves / certainly | overshoots a hedged or limited claim |
| Distorted | half the idea right, one word flipped | sounds familiar but is not what the lines say |
| Wrong job | attacks a premise on a weaken stem that needs the conclusion hit | answers a different question than the stem asked |
A passage says newer research documents persistent bubbles, though the mechanisms remain debated. Which choice is too extreme to be the primary purpose?
- To present research that complicates the view that markets always self-correct
- To prove that market bubbles can never occur under any policy
- To note that older self-correction assumptions face challenging findings
"Prove… never… under any policy" is absolute language the debated-mechanisms passage does not support. The other two stay inside presenting a complication to an older view.
Notes
- Two Question Types: The GMAT Focus Verbal section contains only Reading Comprehension and Critical Reasoning—Sentence Correction was removed in the Focus edition.
- Critical Reasoning Core: Separate conclusion from premises, find the assumption, and answer strengthen, weaken, assumption, or inference stems accordingly.
- Reading Comprehension: Track the main point and paragraph functions; answer from the passage and avoid out-of-scope choices.
- Precision Over Speed: Answers must be exactly supported; a half-right choice is wrong, so verify each option against the text or argument.
Formulas
- Argument model: Premises + Assumption ⇒ Conclusion.
- Weaken: introduce an alternative cause or counterexample.
- Strengthen: confirm the assumption or eliminate alternatives.
- RC elimination: reject out-of-scope, too-extreme, and distorted choices.
Exam traps & shortcuts
- In Critical Reasoning, state the conclusion in your own words before evaluating options.
- For weaken questions, target the gap between premise and conclusion, often an unstated causal assumption.
- In Reading Comprehension, prephrase the answer from the passage, then match rather than reading each choice cold.
Reference tables
Name the job from the stem cue, then run the matching move. Sentence Correction does not appear on Focus Verbal.
| Stem family | Cue words | First move |
|---|---|---|
| CR — strengthen | most strengthens / supports | Name the gap; pick the option that closes it |
| CR — weaken | most weakens / undermines | Break the bridge or add a rival cause |
| CR — assumption | assumes / depends on / requires | State the missing bridge; try negation |
| RC — main idea | primary purpose / main point | Fit the whole passage, including the close |
| RC — function | in order to / function of the | Use surrounding sentences; foil vs thesis |
| RC — inference | implies / suggests / most strongly supported | Keep only what the cited lines force |
One line for Critical Reasoning before any option.
| Piece | Question to ask | Common miss |
|---|---|---|
| Conclusion | What must I accept if the author wins? | Treating a premise as the claim |
| Premises | What support is actually offered? | Inventing evidence the stem never gave |
| Assumption | What unstated link makes the support enough? | Picking a nice-to-have instead of a need-to-have |
Recap
Keep these on exam day; each one kills a planted Focus Verbal distractor.
- SC is gone
- Focus Verbal is RC + CR only — do not spend the section hunting grammar traps.
- Name the claim
- In CR, state the conclusion in your own words before reading choices.
- Bridge first
- Strengthen closes the gap; weaken breaks it — often with an alternative cause.
- Foil, not thesis
- A cited objection followed by rebuttal sets up the author's challenge.
- Point to lines
- If you cannot point to the supporting stretch, the inference is too strong.
- Half-right fails
- Extreme or out-of-scope wording makes a familiar idea wrong.
Practise GMAT Verbal Reasoning
Reading is free and needs no account. Practice, mocks and progress live in the app.
- 5 exam-style questions on this topic, with explanations
- A 5-question practice set that ends the chapter
- Timed mocks scored with the real marking scheme
- Readiness tracked per topic, kept on your device