Exam-level Critical Reasoning: XAT practice questions

Solution

The conclusion credits the lamps for the drop. If a second change (night patrols) happened only in the same areas, the patrols could explain the fall, which weakens the causal claim.

A city-wide trend would affect both groups equally, so it does not explain the difference; electricity use and complaints are irrelevant; a small daytime fall does not separate the two explanations.

Solution

The argument moves from a correlation (companies with the policy have lower turnover) to a promise that adopting the policy will cause lower turnover. That needs the assumption that the policy itself, not other differences between the companies, causes the effect.

Solution

The original study cannot rule out other differences between breakfast-eaters and skippers (sleep, family support). A randomised trial removes those differences and shows breakfast itself raises scores, supporting the plan.

The sleep option actually weakens it by suggesting another cause; cost, liking and afternoon scores do not bear on whether breakfast raises morning scores.

Solution

The statement says promotion → course, not course → promotion. Knowing Ravi took the course tells us nothing certain about his promotion (or whether he is a manager).

Solution

The owner generalises from one shop. If the extra customers come from a limited local demand for café-bookshops, copying the idea in every shop splits that demand and will not lift all of them.

The other options either support the café's profitability or are unrelated to whether the idea works for every shop.

Solution

If similar regions selling to the same buyers kept their exports steady, a general fall in demand is ruled out, and the region's higher costs become the likely cause.

A global fall in demand weakens the claim; living standards, quality and planned cuts do not link the wage rise to the fall.