Deductions in analytical reasoning | Practice

Working with deductions in Analytical Reasoning setups

The setup

What the setup tells us

What do the rules tell us?

What can we deduce?

• Our most concrete group is the HY pair. Since Herrera and Yates are in the same department (Rule 1), we can deduce that HY can’t be in the management department. That’s because the management department only has one position, according to the passage.
• We can mark that HY isn’t in management directly in the diagram.

• The only element we’ve established is Feng. Looking at our rules, does Feng being definitively in production allow us to deduce anything?
• As far as Rule 1 is concerned, nothing has changed. The HY pair must still be either production or sales regardless of Feng being established.
• Rule 2 allows us to make an Established Element deduction! Since Feng and Garcia are not grouped together, then we can deduce that Garcia is not in production. Let’s add that directly to our diagram.
• Finally, Rule 3 isn’t affected by Feng’s placement because Feng in production isn’t a trigger for Rule 3’s conditions.
• We can move on!

• The only place in this setup in which numbers figure is in the assignment of concrete numbers to each group. Don’t take these number assignments for granted—they’re significant. See how only one person can be in management ? If we assign that spot at one point, that will dramatically reduce where employees can be placed.
• We made a deduction earlier around numbers: we said that since management only has one spot, the HY pair can’t be placed there. This will end up being very important.
• So while we can’t do anything concrete right now, it’s always good to look and ensure that the numbers framework doesn’t lead to any further deductions.

• Which elements repeat among the rules?
• The only element who repeats from one rule to another is Feng, and we already made an Established Element deduction around Feng.
• We can move on, now that we’ve confirmed that there are no other repeating elements.

• When deciding whether we can make Scenarios, we want to ask ourselves if any of the rules or groups or numbers restrictions allows us to create only two or three scenarios, and
• If creating those scenarios will lead to more deductions that we wouldn’t otherwise have been able to make.
• The answer to these two questions is yes! Earlier, we said that the HY pair can’t be in management. Can we turn that negative into a positive?
• We can deduce that the HY pair is in either production or sales. There are our two scenarios!
• Can you draw two diagrams around HY’s placement and make deductions from there?

• Notice that when we built two scenarios, we had to run through deductions possibilities again. That’s because we Established Elements that we had not established before. That changes the playing field and allows for more deductions to be made.
• For more in-depth practice with recognizing when Scenarios are helpful and worthwhile, please bookmark the article How to apply multiple scenarios in AR and review it when you can. It takes practice to become adept at creating scenarios, but the payoff is tremendous.

Takeaways

• Be patient and methodical when looking for deductions, instead of trying to “get lucky.”
• Each time you establish a new element, you’ll want to start the GEARS checklist all over again.
• Turn negatives into positives where possible. The more you learn about where an element can’t go, the closer you get to determining where it does go.

Exercise Questions