Free Watson Glaser Practice Test, Updated for 2023

• The words “marked advantage” insinuate that the ability to benefit from unsociable employees is the most significant advantage. However, that advantage is not even mentioned in the text. That means that the answer is either False or Probably False.
• The text specifically mentions the benefits of face-to-face meetings on social interaction: “a workplace with virtual employees might entail miscommunication and less camaraderie and can be more time-consuming than face-to-face interaction”. The conclusion, however, refers to the problems it creates, which is negated by the general message of the passage.

• There is no explicit information in the text to support or refute this conclusion. In any other critical thinking test, the correct answer would therefore be Insufficient Data.
• On the Inference section of the Watson Glaser test, however, you can and SHOULD use common sense. If more than half of the increase in the number of virtual employees of the last 5 years was made in the last 2 (39% of 74%), it can be safely assumed that the increase last year was greater than that of 4 years ago.
• Remember – this conclusion is not explicitly mentioned in the text, but it is more probable than not, and therefore, it is Probably True.

To see why the assumption is made, let’s use the Negative Test algorithm:

• Step #1 – negate the assumption – “It is impossible to predict the impact of department size on business performance.”
• Step #2 – check if the validity of the original statement changes. In our case, it does, since if there is no way to measure the effect of department size on business performance, then any statement trying to predict such effect is meaningless.
• Step #3 – if the statement is not valid anymore, then the assumption was made.

Again, to see why the assumption is not made, let’s use the Negative Test algorithm.

• Step #1 – negate the assumption – “The development of supercomputers will never be completed”.
• Step #2 – check if the validity of the original statement changes. In our case, it does not, since the given statement is a merely hypothetical claim, and says nothing about the possibility (or lack thereof) of developing supercomputers.
• Step #3 – if the statement is still valid, then the assumption was not made.

This question is fairly simple, so we are going to solve it intuitively. However, it is strongly advised to use other, safer methods in the actual Watson Glaser test, such as Venn diagrams or Letter Coding. 

We know two facts:

• Only technological companies are listed on the OTX. This is equivalent to: All companies listed on the OTX are technological.
• No technological company remains unstable for a long period of time. This is equivalent to: All technological companies are not unstable for a long period of time.

Combining these two facts, it is easy to see that all companies on the OTX will not be unstable for a long period of time.

This is a more advanced question, so we will solve it using Venn diagrams.

Let’s draw the diagrams:

Remember that in the Watson Glaser test, “Either A – or B” means that “all items must either be A or B (not both, not neither)”.

It is possible for all items to be A or for all items to be B.

Therefore, the conclusion follows.

The conclusion proposes a reason that is neither given explicitly in the text nor is it probable beyond a reasonable doubt. It is basically providing an explanation that stems from our own, personal perceptions.

This argument is both relevant to the topic and important.

• It is important, as it refers to the benefit the company might (or might not) get from this policy.
• It is relevant, as it addresses the issue itself – the free time given to employees and its consequences.

Note that the trivial details provided ("...clean their homes, run errands, and meet with friends...") are a distractor intended to make the issue seem trivial – however, they do not change the relevance or importance of the given argument.

While the given argument is important (touches on the main issue of the question), it is not fully relevant.

What’s missing here is the connection between the argument (everyone’s opinion matters), and the effect this opinion will have – what benefit will these opinions bring to the company?