Verbal Reasoning¶

Reasoning that represents premises, relations, alternatives, and conclusions primarily through words and language structure, requiring interpretation and inference beyond mere vocabulary or fluency while remaining sensitive to language knowledge and task format.

Version: v1 · 2026-09-28 · History
Domain-specific #: 7796
Domain group: Interdisciplinary & Synthetic
Origin domain: Cognitive Science
Subdomain: Cognitive Psychology → Cognitive Science
Aliases: Language-Mediated Reasoning

Core Idea¶

Verbal Reasoning is reasoning in which the relevant concepts, premises, relations, rules, alternatives, and conclusions are represented primarily through words, sentences, or discourse.^[1] A person interprets the language, constructs a representation of what it says, and performs one or more inferences. The result can be a conclusion, comparison, explanation, classification, missing relation, critique, or decision justified from the verbal material.

The abstraction is not identical to speaking well or knowing many words.^[2] Vocabulary, grammar, and reading skill often enable access to a task, but verbal reasoning requires transforming and relating represented content. Someone may define every word in an argument yet fail to notice an inconsistency. Conversely, a person can reason well about content expressed in a familiar language while having limited expressive polish.

The word verbal identifies a representational modality, not one logical form. Verbal reasoning can be deductive, inductive, abductive, analogical, causal, probabilistic, or evaluative. A syllogism, analogy, policy passage, legal argument, and everyday explanation all use language while imposing different inference obligations.

Comprehension and inference are separable but coupled.^[3] The reasoner must resolve word meanings, syntax, reference, scope, negation, quantifiers, discourse relations, and pragmatic context well enough to build a usable representation. An error can arise before inference because the sentence was misparsed, during inference because a rule was misapplied, or during response because the conclusion was encoded incorrectly.

Ambiguity is therefore central. Natural language underdetermines meaning through polysemy, pronouns, ellipsis, implicature, figurative usage, and context. Some tasks deliberately minimize these features to measure formal relations. Others treat sensitivity to them as part of the construct. A score cannot be interpreted without knowing which language burdens the instrument includes.

Common verbal-reasoning tasks include analogies, syllogisms, sentence or passage inference, identifying assumptions, evaluating arguments, drawing conclusions from stated facts, arranging verbal relations, and resolving logical consistency. Test families choose different mixtures. The shared label does not guarantee interchangeable scores.

A classic “true, false, or cannot tell” item asks the respondent to constrain inference to a passage. World knowledge may tempt an answer not licensed by the text. The task measures both comprehension and discipline about evidential scope. An analogy item instead requires identifying a relation between one word pair and mapping it to another. Both are verbal reasoning but have distinct microstructures.^[4]

Psychometric use introduces a measurement layer. Observed performance reflects the target ability plus language proficiency, education, cultural familiarity, working memory, attention, speed, test-taking strategy, disability access, and motivation.^[5] Construct validity asks whether item responses behave as expected for verbal reasoning rather than merely correlating with a preferred outcome. Reliability alone does not establish that interpretation.

Timed selection tests can reward processing speed in addition to reasoning accuracy. Untimed clinical or educational tasks may emphasize explanation and strategy. Computerized adaptive tests alter item selection as responses accumulate. A reported “verbal reasoning score” is therefore an instrument-specific estimate under conditions, not a direct reading of a unitary substance.

Multilingual assessment makes the language–reasoning distinction especially important. A test administered in a person's less proficient language can underestimate accessible reasoning because comprehension consumes resources or unfamiliar vocabulary blocks representation. Translation can change difficulty, ambiguity, cultural assumptions, and item relations. Norms and validation population must be appropriate to the inference being made.

Verbal reasoning overlaps verbal comprehension, but comprehension can stop at constructing meaning while reasoning adds transformations or conclusions. It overlaps critical thinking, but critical thinking includes evaluating evidence, sources, biases, and decisions across verbal and nonverbal materials.^[6] It overlaps reading comprehension, whose tasks can include retrieval, interpretation, inference, and evaluation with varying reasoning load.

It contrasts with visual reasoning only by dominant representation.^[7] A diagram may support an inference expressed in words; a verbal problem may evoke a spatial model. Human reasoning is often multimodal. Classifying a task as verbal should reflect what information must be decoded and manipulated, not the superficial presence of written instructions.

Expertise changes performance because domain terms and schemas compress information. A lawyer may reason rapidly about a statute because familiar concepts reveal structure, while a logically equivalent unfamiliar passage remains harder. General verbal-reasoning ability and domain knowledge are analytically distinguishable but interact in real tasks.

The abstraction has a normative and descriptive side. Normatively, rules determine what conclusion follows from premises. Descriptively, cognitive research studies strategies, errors, processing time, and individual differences. An assessment can ask whether a conclusion is logically warranted without claiming that everyday reasoners always follow formal logic.

Structural Signature¶

Sig role-phrases:

the verbal carrier — words, sentences, passages, dialogue, or language-encoded propositions present the inferential content.
the language-access layer — vocabulary, syntax, reference, scope, and pragmatic context determine whether the represented material can be reached.
the interpreted representation — decoded language is organized into propositions, alternatives, relations, and constraints rather than left as surface wording.
the permitted evidence set — explicit premises and contextually licensed information bound what may enter the inference.
the target relation — logical, analogical, causal, categorical, temporal, or evidential structure specifies what must be detected.
the inferential transformation — comparison, combination, elimination, generalization, or evaluation changes the represented material under the task rule.
the licensed conclusion — an answer or judgment follows with a scope and confidence limited by the premises and operation.
the task envelope — item form, timing, response mode, scoring, language, and population determine what observed performance means.
the access–inference diagnostic — paraphrase, translation, timing changes, or explanation requests distinguish comprehension burden from transformation error.
the construct boundary — vocabulary, fluency, memory, or one score alone does not establish verbal reasoning.^[8]
the modality boundary — diagrams or imagery may assist, but language must remain the dominant carrier of the information being inferred over.

What It Is Not¶

Not vocabulary, grammar, fluency, or eloquence alone. Those capacities enable access to verbal material, but reasoning additionally requires constructing relations and transforming premises into a licensed conclusion.
Not reading comprehension by itself. Comprehension can stop after recovering meaning, whereas verbal reasoning applies a deductive, analogical, causal, classificatory, or evaluative operation to the interpreted representation.
Not one standardized test or “Verbal IQ” score. Item form, timing, language, scoring, validation population, and the mixture of access and inference burdens determine what an observed score can support.
Not exclusively deductive logic. The verbal carrier can support induction, abduction, analogy, causal judgment, probability, critique, or decision as well as formal deduction.
Not invalidated by imagery or diagrams used as aids. Classification turns on the dominant carrier of the premises and relations, not on whether the reasoner recruits secondary nonverbal representations internally.
Not equivalent to language proficiency or critical thinking. Language proficiency may make the material accessible, while critical thinking ranges across source evaluation, bias, and nonverbal evidence beyond this modality-specific construct.
Not directly observed when an answer is wrong. Failure may arise in lexical or syntactic access, inferential transformation, working memory, speed, or response encoding, and those possibilities require diagnostic separation.^[9]

Scope of Application¶

Verbal Reasoning has a domain-bounded cognitive identity wherever language is the dominant carrier of premises and relations that must be interpreted and transformed into a licensed conclusion.^[10] Each habitat must state the language, content domain, inference operation, permitted evidence, timing, response mode, and—when performance is measured—the population and construct claim, because vocabulary access or one score is not the reasoning process itself.

Cognitive-psychology research. Experiments study how people build propositional representations, resolve scope or reference, apply inference rules, select strategies, and commit characteristic errors under language-bearing tasks.
Psychometric assessment. Analogy, syllogism, passage-inference, argument-evaluation, and related item families can sample verbal reasoning only through a validated interpretation that separates language access, speed, memory, and response format from the target transformation.
Educational learning and assessment. Reading, discussion, and written problems invoke verbal reasoning when learners must compare claims, infer unstated relations, evaluate an argument, or derive a conclusion rather than recall vocabulary or text alone.
Neuropsychological evaluation. Language-mediated inference tasks contribute evidence about a person's functioning when sensory, linguistic, motor, cultural, and clinical conditions are included in interpretation.
Multilingual and second-language assessment. The construct remains literal across languages when translation, proficiency, norms, ambiguity, and cultural knowledge are controlled well enough to distinguish access burden from inferential performance.
Admissions and employment testing. Standardized verbal-reasoning scores are applicable only within the instrument's validated population, decision use, timing, accommodations, and fairness evidence; the label alone cannot authorize a high-stakes inference.
Legal reasoning. Statutes, precedents, testimony, and written arguments require attention to wording, scope, exceptions, evidential bounds, and the relation between premises and conclusions within a legal context.
Policy analysis. Proposals and evidence summaries support verbal comparison of assumptions, causal claims, alternatives, and consequences when the relevant outside evidence and decision rule are declared.
Everyday explanation and argument. Conversation and prose instantiate verbal reasoning when a person reconstructs relations, tests consistency, supplies an explanation, or limits a conclusion to what the language supports.
Human–computer interaction and language interfaces. A user or system can reason over language-mediated instructions and claims, but evaluation must distinguish successful inference from retrieval, pattern matching, memorized knowledge, and interface effects.
Multimodal tasks with language-dominant evidence. Diagrams or imagery may assist, yet the identity applies only when decoding and transforming the verbal representation remains constitutive; otherwise visual or diagrammatic reasoning is the better classification.

Clarity¶

Naming verbal reasoning makes visible an inference carried by language rather than mere fluency, vocabulary, reading speed, or recall. It distinguishes the construct from the task, the observed response, and the score interpretation: a nominally verbal-reasoning item may impose substantial decoding demands, and a correct response may reflect valid inference, memorized knowledge, guessing, or an alternative strategy. “Verbal” identifies the dominant representation, not a single logical form.

This framing lets an assessor separate failure to understand the represented premises from failure to transform them correctly. It also exposes the task's evidence boundary: a “cannot tell” item may prohibit outside knowledge, while an authentic decision may require it. The better assessment question is: what linguistic access, inference operation, content knowledge, timing, response format, and evidence rule does this task require, and which of those components can the observed performance legitimately support an inference about?

Manages Complexity¶

Verbal Reasoning compresses a language-bearing task into a three-stage account: construct a meaning representation, transform its relations under the task's inference rule, and encode a licensed response. The analyst tracks lexical and syntactic access, reference and scope, the permitted evidence set, the required operation—such as deduction, analogy, evaluation, or abduction—and the response and timing conditions. Errors then branch intelligibly: an unfamiliar word or misparsed negation can block representation; an invalid relation mapping can fail inference; outside knowledge can exceed a passage-bounded rule; and a response-format or speed demand can obscure an otherwise sound conclusion.

This decomposition also bounds what a score can summarize. Performance still mixes language proficiency, domain knowledge, working memory, cultural familiarity, attention, speed, strategy, and accommodation with the intended reasoning process. Different task families sample different relations, and translation can alter ambiguity or difficulty. The compression therefore supports a construct claim only when the instrument, population, language, timing, and evidence rule are specified; it cannot turn vocabulary, fluency, one correct answer, or one nominal verbal-reasoning score into a direct measure of a unitary ability.

Abstract Reasoning¶

The first reasoning move is from linguistic form to a task-appropriate representation. The reasoner resolves relevant word senses, syntax, reference, negation, quantifier scope, and discourse relations, then identifies premises, alternatives, and the permitted evidence set. Only after that representation is fixed can a deductive consequence, analogy, causal explanation, critique, or “cannot tell” judgment be licensed. Different sentences may express the same proposition, while superficially similar sentences can impose different relations.

The second move transforms the represented content under the task's rule. From “all archived cases were reviewed” and “case A was not reviewed,” classical deduction supports that case A was not archived; from an instrument–quantity word pair, an analogy item requires the same relation in the answer pair rather than topical association. Passage-bounded tasks prohibit adding plausible world knowledge, whereas authentic evaluation may require checking outside evidence. The conclusion is therefore conditional on both the interpreted language and the declared inference regime.

Diagnostic reasoning localizes errors by intervening on those layers. Paraphrasing unfamiliar vocabulary while preserving the relation tests linguistic access; removing a time limit tests speed burden; asking for an explanation can reveal whether a correct choice followed the intended inference or guessing. If performance changes after translation or accommodation, the original score cannot be attributed wholly to reasoning ability. Conversely, stable mistakes after comprehension is established implicate the transformation or evidence rule more directly. This supports instrument-specific construct claims while blocking inference from one response or score to a unitary, language-independent capacity.

Knowledge Transfer¶

Within cognitive science and language-based assessment, Verbal Reasoning transfers literally across syllogisms, analogies, passage inference, argument evaluation, legal and policy problems, educational tasks, and multilingual testing whenever words and discourse carry the premises and required relations. The same mechanism carries from lexical, syntactic, referential, and pragmatic interpretation to a structured meaning, then through a declared inferential operation to a response. Its diagnostics and interventions distinguish access from inference by paraphrasing vocabulary, changing language or timing, permitting or prohibiting outside knowledge, and asking for an explanation. Vocabulary, fluency, domain knowledge, response format, and score interpretation remain separately named sources of performance.

Beyond explicitly verbal tasks, the honest transfer is (B) shared abstract mechanism through Symbolic Representation, with an (A) analogy boundary. Formal notation, diagrams, or interfaces may likewise require access to an encoded representation before reasoning over it, so the access-versus-transformation diagnostic can carry. What remains home-bound is natural-language vocabulary and grammar, semantic and discourse interpretation, pragmatic context, language proficiency, translation effects, and passage-bounded verbal evidence rules. A visual matrix or physical manipulation is not verbal reasoning merely because instructions are written in words. The stopping boundary is loss of language as the dominant carrier of the inferential content; after that point the shared lesson concerns symbolic or multimodal reasoning rather than this node.

Examples¶

Canonical¶

Consider the two sentences “All archived cases were reviewed” and “Case A was not reviewed.” Interpreting the first as “if a case was archived, then it was reviewed” permits the classical contrapositive inference that Case A was not archived. The conclusion depends on the quantifier and negation structure, not on knowing what the archive contains. “Case A was mishandled” would go beyond the premises, and reversing the implication to conclude that every reviewed case was archived would be invalid. The example therefore separates understanding the sentences from applying the licensed logical transformation.

Mapped back: The two sentences are the verbal carrier, and resolving “all,” conditional force, and negation uses the language-access layer. Their propositional form is the interpreted representation. The implication is the target relation, contraposition is the inferential transformation, and “Case A was not archived” is the licensed conclusion bounded by the permitted evidence set.

Applied / In Practice¶

In a passage-based employment assessment, a short text states that some applicants who completed training were offered interviews. An item asks whether a named applicant was offered an interview, but the passage never identifies that person. “Cannot tell” is the warranted response even if outside knowledge makes an interview seem likely. If a test taker answers correctly after an unfamiliar phrase is paraphrased while the relation and evidence rule remain unchanged, the contrast suggests that the original difficulty lay in language access rather than in drawing the inference. That diagnosis remains specific to the item and administration, not a global measure of ability.

Mapped back: The passage fixes the permitted evidence set and the item asks for the licensed conclusion under a true/false/cannot-tell format. Language, timing, response rule, and testing context constitute the task envelope. Paraphrasing while preserving the relation exercises the access–inference diagnostic, and the refusal to equate one response with the entire ability respects the construct boundary.

Structural Tensions¶

T1: Language access versus inferential ability. A verbal task cannot be solved without enough lexical, syntactic, and referential access to represent its premises, yet observed failure at that layer need not be a reasoning failure. Removing all language demand would also remove the modality that defines the construct.

Diagnostic: Can paraphrase, explanation, or an access accommodation distinguish failure to represent the premises from failure to transform them?

T2: Natural-language nuance versus formal tractability. Natural language carries context, ambiguity, and pragmatic force that may be part of the task, while formalization can make relations and validity easier to inspect. Overformalizing discards relevant meaning; leaving every interpretation implicit makes the inference rule unstable.

Diagnostic: Which linguistic distinctions must survive formalization for the conclusion to remain licensed by the original material?

T3: Domain expertise versus general reasoning process. Familiar concepts let experts compress a passage and expose its relation structure, while unfamiliar content increases access and memory burden. Treating expertise as irrelevant misreads performance; treating every advantage as domain knowledge makes general inferential operations invisible.

Diagnostic: Does performance persist when the same relation is expressed in content with different familiarity but comparable linguistic demands?

T4: Speed sensitivity versus accuracy of inference. Time limits may be legitimate when rapid processing is part of the intended construct, but they also mix reasoning with reading speed, attention, and response production. Untimed conditions reveal reasoning more cleanly while potentially changing the real decision context being modeled.

Diagnostic: Is the score interpretation explicit about whether processing speed is intended evidence or an unwanted source of variance?

T5: Passage-bounded evidence versus relevant world knowledge. Some tasks test discipline by licensing only what a passage states; authentic legal, policy, or everyday reasoning may require outside facts and context. Applying the passage rule universally creates artificial ignorance, whereas importing world knowledge into a closed item licenses unsupported conclusions.

Diagnostic: Is the permitted evidence set declared before judging whether an inference is warranted?

T6: Comparable scoring versus strategy diversity. A common answer format supports measurement across people, yet the same response can arise from the intended inference, a different valid representation, memorized content, or guessing. Scoring only the endpoint improves scale at the cost of process evidence.

Diagnostic: What response explanation or controlled variation shows that the observed answer arose from the relation the task claims to measure?

T7: Translation accessibility versus construct equivalence. Translation can broaden access, but changes in ambiguity, vocabulary frequency, syntax, cultural assumptions, or relation salience can alter task difficulty. Literal wording equivalence is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient for equivalent measurement.

Diagnostic: Has the translated task preserved the inference operation and evidence rule for the relevant population rather than merely matching words?

T8: Verbal Reasoning autonomy versus reduction to Inference (Inference). The parent Prime carries the portable transformation from typed starting information through a licensed support relation to a conclusion. Every instance of Verbal Reasoning is a strict kind of Inference because verbal premises and a task-specific deductive, inductive, abductive, analogical, causal, or evaluative operation support a scoped answer. Reduction loses vocabulary, grammar, reference, discourse, and language-access constraints; total autonomy hides the general premise-to-conclusion structure.

Diagnostic: Does the account retain natural language as the constitutive carrier and its linguistic constraints as differentia of this Inference?

Structural–Framed Character¶

Verbal Reasoning is framed-leaning. Its vocab_travels is moderate because premises, conclusions, and support relations are general, while lexical, syntactic, pragmatic, and psychometric terms bind the language-mediated case. Its evaluative_weight is substantial because what counts as licensed evidence or a correct answer depends on task rules and validity claims. Its institutional_origin lies partly in cognitive research, education, and assessment practice. Its human_practice_bound is high because language conventions, interpretation, and testing populations are constitutive. On import_vs_recognize, a support relation may be recognized once content is interpreted, but the verbal carrier, permitted evidence, and scoring envelope are conventionally supplied.

The smallest reviewed portable skeleton is Inference: information is transformed under a support relation into a further claim whose scope is bounded by the premises. Portable and cross-domain reach belongs to that Prime. Verbal Reasoning adds words and discourse as the dominant carrier, a language-access layer, paraphrase and translation perturbations, and the access–inference diagnostic. Those features distinguish reasoning failure from vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, memory, or test-format effects.

Its character: framed-leaning because licensed passage from premises to conclusion is portable, while linguistic interpretation and assessment conditions determine the candidate's identity and warrant.

Structural Core vs. Domain Accent¶

This decomposition explains why Verbal Reasoning is a domain-specific abstraction rather than a Prime.

What is skeletal (could lift toward a cross-domain prime). Typed starting information and a candidate conclusion are linked by a declared rule or support relation; applying that relation yields a further claim whose strength and scope remain bounded by the premises. The invariant is licensed passage from information to conclusion, and recognition fails when there is only association, assertion, retrieval, or comprehension without an inferential transformation. Verbal Reasoning is therefore a strict specialization of Inference: Inference supplies premises, support relation, conclusion, and revisability, while the child fixes the dominant representational carrier to language.

What is domain-bound. Words, sentences, passages, and discourse must be decoded through vocabulary, syntax, reference, scope, and pragmatic context into propositions, alternatives, and constraints. A task-specific deductive, inductive, abductive, analogical, causal, or evaluative operation then transforms that representation under a declared evidence rule. Paraphrase, translation, timing, response format, and explanation requests separate language access from inference, while test population and construct validity bound score interpretation. Fluency, reading comprehension, or a written instruction alone does not preserve this language-mediated reasoning identity.

Why this does not clear the prime bar. The complete verbal-carrier, language-access, interpreted-representation, permitted-evidence, inferential-operation, licensed-conclusion, task-envelope, and access–inference diagnostic signature does not recur literally across at least three unrelated domains with the same recognition and failure conditions. Knowledge Transfer gives licensed support to Inference and symbolic access to its separately presupposed representation layer; diagrams or formal notation may share those mechanisms without becoming Verbal Reasoning. Removing the linguistic accent leaves an Inference but not Verbal Reasoning, while removing the premise-to-conclusion support relation leaves language comprehension, vocabulary, or symbolic representation without the inferential act that defines the candidate.

This entry is a kind of Inference.

Instantiates — Inference (Inference). Verbal Reasoning is a language-mediated subtype of licensed passage from information to a further claim. Its words, sentences, and discourse supply Inference's typed carrier; interpreted premises and the permitted evidence set supply the starting information; its deductive, inductive, abductive, analogical, causal, or evaluative task rule supplies the support relation; and the answer or judgment supplies the conclusion with a stated scope. Paraphrase, translation, timing changes, and explanation requests provide observation and perturbation paths, while the access–inference diagnostic separates a failure to recover the carrier from a failure of the inferential step. The invariant is that changing only the verbal surface while preserving interpreted premises and the support rule preserves the licensed conclusion. If the transformation from those premises under a support relation is removed, what remains may be vocabulary, comprehension, or symbolic language, but it is no longer Verbal Reasoning; that collapse maps the parent's full signature rather than merely sharing its name.

Strictly presupposes — Symbolic Representation (Symbolic Representation). The verbal carrier depends on convention-bound signs, meanings, an interpretive language community, maintained lexical and grammatical conventions, and productive composition into propositions. This is a prerequisite rather than the parent identity: a symbolic language can exist without the particular reasoning episode, and Verbal Reasoning adds interpretation plus inferential transformation that the encoding-side prime does not supply.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction Verbal Reasoning Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

Verbal Reasoning is a kind of Inference Prime

Verbal Reasoning is a language-mediated subtype of licensed passage from information to a further claim.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Verbal Reasoning → Inference → Rationality → Normativity → Constraint

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

Verbal Reasoning sits in a moderately populated region (43^rd percentile for distinctiveness): it has near-neighbors but no dense thicket of look-alikes.

Family — Language, Mind & Meaning-Making (57 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-08

Not to Be Confused With¶

Verbal Comprehension. Verbal comprehension constructs meaning from spoken or written language and can stop without deriving a new conclusion. Tell: accurate paraphrase or retrieval demonstrates comprehension; selecting or justifying a conclusion from stated relations demonstrates verbal reasoning.
Reading Comprehension. Reading comprehension is the broader family of understanding, retrieval, integration, and interpretation in written texts, only some of which requires inference. Tell: a task answered by locating an explicit sentence tests reading comprehension, while a task requiring relations across premises tests verbal reasoning.
Critical Thinking. Critical thinking evaluates claims, evidence, and arguments across verbal, quantitative, and visual media; verbal reasoning is defined by language carrying the inferential structure. Tell: if the decisive relations are encoded in words or propositions it is verbal reasoning, while medium-independent appraisal belongs to critical thinking.
Visual Reasoning. Visual reasoning derives conclusions from spatial or pictorial relations rather than primarily from linguistic propositions. Tell: removing the picture while preserving only the words destroys a visual task; removing the wording while preserving a diagram destroys a verbal one.
Diagrammatic Reasoning. Diagrammatic reasoning depends on the topology or geometry of a diagram as a semantic carrier, even when labels appear. Tell: if position, connection, enclosure, or shape licenses the inference, the task is diagrammatic rather than verbal.
Language Proficiency. Language proficiency is the broader capacity to understand and produce a language and can support verbal reasoning without guaranteeing it. Tell: vocabulary and grammar performance establish proficiency; deriving a conclusion from linguistically stated constraints establishes reasoning.
Verbal Fluency. Verbal fluency is the speed or ease of producing words under a rule, not necessarily the correctness of an inference. Tell: rapid word generation tests fluency, while a slower but valid premise-to-conclusion move tests verbal reasoning.
Verbal Working Memory. Verbal working memory temporarily maintains and manipulates linguistic material and is a supporting capacity rather than the inferential act itself. Tell: retaining a sequence measures working memory; using retained propositions to reach a warranted conclusion measures verbal reasoning.

References¶

[1] Understanding the GRE General Test: Verbal Reasoning registry ↩

[2] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[3] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[4] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[5] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[6] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[7] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[8] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[9] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩

[10] Unverified encyclopedia synthesis; claim-specific authoritative support was not established in this verification pass. ↩