Ask what must hold in every permitted case.
Practise conditional rules, undetermined conclusions, linked implications, existence, exclusive alternatives and ordering.
This count describes six selected tasks in this edition and language. It is not an IQ, percentile, hiring standard or estimate of your general verbal ability. Every count opens the same answers and complete guides.
Treat the supplied rules as the task premises
The logic items use small fictional systems with explicit premises. Within that system, ask which conclusion follows in every case satisfying those premises. A conclusion that happens to be true in one possible case is not automatically entailed. A conclusion can also remain undetermined: there may be one permitted case where it is true and another where it is false. This differs from showing that the conclusion must be false.
Do not reverse a one-way rule
Suppose every blue pass opens a gate, and a pass opens it. The pass need not be blue, because the premises did not say that only blue passes open the gate. A blue pass and an alternative qualifying pass can both fit the rule. In contrast, if every blue pass opens the gate and a particular pass does not open it, that pass cannot be blue under the stipulated rule.
Track existence, exclusivity and direction
At least one marked orange token does not mean every marked token is orange. If all orange tokens occupy one cabinet, the premises guarantee a marked token there, without describing all other tokens. Exactly one active indicator rules out both none and both. For ordering, preserve the direction of each before relation and the stated absence of ties. Do not import a real-world exception that contradicts the fictional premises.
Construct a permitted counterexample
For a tempting conclusion, try to build a small case where all premises hold but the conclusion fails. Write each premise beside the case and check it separately. If the case violates one premise, it is not a counterexample. For a tiny ordering task, list every possible order and cross out those that break a stated relation. This method makes a claim about necessity visible rather than relying on how plausible a sentence sounds.
Formal checks have a defined boundary
This edition enumerates the finite truth assignments or permutations encoded for its formal items. Those checks establish the encoded consequences; they do not independently prove that every natural-language sentence perfectly expresses its encoding. Other vocabulary, analogy and passage meanings require author review. There are no population norms, IQ conversion, hiring cutoff or speed score. After seeing an explanation, practise a new premise set instead of using memory as evidence of general reasoning ability.