CAT Critical Reasoning Practice question with Solution 54

This is simply a matter of a very common chain of argument: IF X, then Y. If Y, then Z. Therefore, if X, then Z. Specifically: If the country is to remain internationally competitive, then there is an undeniable need for citizens to better understand international affairs. If there’s a need for this better understanding of international affairs, then all of our new teachers must be prepared to teach their subject matter with an international orientation. This allows us to infer that the first statement leads to the third: If the country is to remain internationally competitive, then all of our new teachers must be prepared to teach their subjects with an international orientation.

(B) and (C), like many choices before them on this test, confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. The stimulus establishes the ability of new teachers to teach with an international focus as necessary for the country to remain competitive. We can’t infer, as (B) suggests, that it’s sufficient for this. And as for (C), better understanding of international affairs by our citizens is also necessary, but not sufficient, for the country to remain competitive.

(D) completely denies the author’s first if-then statement, which is an important premise in the argument.

(E) All we’re told about public reports is that they stressed the need for citizens to better understand international affairs. We have no evidence that they said anything about training teachers to teach with an international focus—that requirement was inserted by the author.