You are amazing! I can't even explain how happy I am that I found your video. I tried using every platform to learn the Watson-Glaser, but this is the only resource that has truly helped me. I'm so grateful-thank you so much!!!!
Hi, thanks for the video it's super helpful! For question 22, I don't understand why roads being unsuitable for loads over one ton necessarily means that they are passable for loads under one ton - the fact that A is unsuitable to B does not necessarily mean A is suitable to non-B, the road could be unsuitable for both, in that case the statement would have selectively mentioned only one of the categories, but the lack of mention of the other does not necessarily say anything about it
I'm glad you found it helpful! As for your question: TL;DR - It can be assumed that not all information is provided in a statement, but it should not be assumed that an arbitrary concealment of knowledge has been made. Please see the elaborate explanation below. You will nearly always find yourself disagreeing with a couple of the provided answers in a Watson Glaser - that's a part of the test's nature. You can become better-practiced and more familiar with it, but there will never be a definite, full set of rules to follow, and such disagreements will always exist, to an extent. However, as this is the official correct answer provided by the Watson Glaser test, I'll do my best to explain, even though it's admittedly difficult. It is true that it is possible that the roads are impassable for vehicles of over, say, 500 kg, but the author chose to arbitrarily mention a higher number as the limit. However, that would mean that the text is skewing reality in a very uncommon way. For instance, had the text mentioned that "the road is impassable for trucks" then we really can't deduce anything else about other types of vehicles - but giving a single piece of data (a number) that misrepresents reality is not a part of the assumptions normally made in the WG test. This is genuinely difficult to explain and I hope I didn't get you more confused... This is why this test takes so much practice and variety. Shlomik
Hi Shlomik. Thank you for the video and your explanations. They are extremely useful. I do however find myself agreeing with my colleague here regarding question 22. From what I have seen, it is not uncommon for Watson Glaser tests to include information which is intentionally used to misguide students. It seems quite hard to determine when information is added for what reason, and at least for me this is a large reason why I find myself overthinking when doing the test. I still did not understand your explanation so perhaps I could rephrase the question: If the conclusion NECESSARILY has to follow in the deduction section, then on what basis - from the words in the statement - can we determine that roads into the capital specifically (as opposed to other regions in the area) are passable? Thanks for your time and help
@@tawfeegallam4917 Thanks for taking the time to give me this feedback! At the end of the day, I may personally also disagree with some of the answers regarded as correct in the WG test. This is logical/verbal reasoning, not math, and after all is said and done, there can still be disagreements. However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I am presenting the officialy correct answers for this WG test, and do my best to explain why they are correct - with all their possible problems and shortcomings. You rephrased the question so I'll rephrase my explanation. From the words "roads...unsuitable for loads over one ton" we can deduce that they are suitable for loads under 1 ton. Because, if in "reality" the roads are impassable for loads over 500 kg, or impassable for any vehicle, but the text mentions 1 ton, this means the text is literally LYING, which can't be the case.
First of all - well done! I know there are other prep courses on the market, but I haven't looked into them so I can't recommend any. However, most websites usually offer some sort of free sample material. Now that you have completed the JTP practice, you can check out those to see if they provide good value.
Really helpful video! However, I am slightly confused by the answers to a few of the questions. Question 1 - your answer was 'true'. However, we are only told that the plan was the first one introduced in the area. From a strictly logical perspective, it's possible that the Chamonix -Mont-Blanc Valley authorities could have created a plan in a different area (even though, we can almost certainly assume by their name that they have not done so). Based on this would the answer not be "probably true"? Question 14 - your answer was "assumption made". Your explanation was that the thrill is 'THE' reward itself. However, the text only says that courage is 'A' reward. Surely this leaves open the possibility that other forms of reward may be possible, such as special recognition? We are not given any information on whether other forms of reward are required or not - but there is the possibility that they could be. Therefore, should the answer not be "assumption not made"? Question 28 - your answer was "conclusion follows". However, we are only told in the text that a fewer AMOUNT of programmers, and a larger AMOUNT of marketing staff are involved. We are not told about the percentages involved. The percentages could still have remained the same if for example the company got rid of a proportionate amount of programmers/marketing staff in the interim period. To give an extreme example, let's say there were 100 programmers for the first product, 20 of which worked on it. Then, the company fired 90 programmers, leaving just 10. For the second product, only 2 of the remaining 10 programmers were involved. In this case, even though fewer programmers are involved, in both instances, 20% of the programmers are working. As such, the conclusion does not follow necessarily (but I guess maybe it does follow beyond reasonable doubt?). In any case, I'm not convinced that your explanation in the video follows. Would be super grateful to hear your thoughts on this!
Hi and thanks for the feedback! Firstly, I'll say that the answers provided in the video are not based on my personal perspective. They are the officially correct answers for this Clifford Chance sample test. As such, I might sometimes disagree with any particular answer (and I actually did :) - but the best I can do to help candidates is to provide the reasoning as for WHY these answers are defined as correct. Now, as for question 1: It should be understood from the text that the Chamonix-Mont Blanc valley is found within the French Alps, not the other way around. From the fact that Chamonix is a ski resort, and the French Alps are a mountain range, we can deduce that the former is contained within the latter. Therefore, if the plan is the first climate and energy action plan in the French Alps, it also has to be the first to be ever done by the C-MB authorities. As for question 14: The fact that the assumption is made does not mean that special recognition can NEVER be the reward of facing unplanned assignments. What it means that IF one believes that it is possible that the reward in facing unplanned assignments is the thrill or courage required to do so, THEN one must assume that no special recognition is REQUIRED. This reasoning does not eliminate other options for rewards, but if you say that the thrill can be the reward itself, you have to necessarily believe that it is not REQUIRED (this is the keyword here) to have any special recognition. This is hard to explain in writing, I hope it's somewhat clearer... As for question 28: Your added scenario of the company firing a number of employees is an overcomplication of the problem that should not be considered when solving questions in the interpretation section. In the interpretation section, we aim to decide whether the conclusion follows beyond a reasonable doubt, and not if there is any wild scenario we can imagine in which the conclusion won't follow. Nothing is mentioned in the text about firing employees, so that is not a scenario you should take into account when approaching the question. Note that the scenario you suggested does not fall under the category of "alternative explanations" I present in the end of the section. It adds additional (and rather complex) assumptions that were not made in the text. That is in contrast to additional assumptions made in the conclusion, as in, for instance, question 31. I hope these explanations clarify and wish you the best of luck with your test. Shlomik
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Thanks for the reply! I'm still slightly puzzled by q1 and q14. I hope it doesn't come across as if I'm being overly pedantic, but I'm curious to know whether you think the points I've made are justifiable at all, or whether in your perspective, the official answers are definitely correct. For q1, there are two things I'd say. 1) I agree that we can deduce that Chamonix is found within the French Alps. My point was that, strictly speaking, there remains the (incredibly unlikely) possibility that this authority created an energy action plan for a different region, outside the French Alps. For example, they were asked to create a plan by their good friends at a Swiss regional authority for a resort in the Swiss Alps. (Note I understand this is completely absurd, but my point is that logically, we cannot say that the answer is *definitely* true). 2) Another point that I didn't make initially is the difference in wording in the text and statement: "created" vs "introduced". It is possible that the authorities created a plan previously but decided to discard it and not introduce it. For q14, you say that "if you say that the thrill can be the reward itself, you have to necessarily believe that it is not REQUIRED (this is the keyword here) to have any special recognition". I completely agree. However, the text says that the courage to undertake an unplanned assignment is "A" reward in itself, not "THE" reward. I think this distinction matters because it means that we cannot reject the possibility that other rewards are *required*, or are even the main reward. If we take for granted that special recognition IS required, we can still make the statement that "the courage to undertake an unplanned assignment is a reward in itself". As an analogy, if I made the statement, "the satisfaction of completing a full working day at Clifford Chance is a reward in itself", I am not making the assumption that "working at Clifford Chance requires no compensation because of the reward of satisfaction". I feel like the more I read this question, the more confused I get, so please let me know if you think this analogy doesn't map on! Your explanation for q28 makes perfect sense to me!
I can understand the point you're making regarding q14 - the analogy you made for Clifford Chance is rather convincing :) I think you have a valid argument. Again, knowing the correct answer to this question, I couldn't provide this reasoning as an explanation, but so is the nature of the Watson Glaser test. At the end of the day, it isn't math, and the correct answers could be disagreed upon. As for q1 - My apologies, but in this case I definitely think you got this wrong. While the WG test is a test of critical thinking, the mindset of trying to find the very unlikely, hypothetical loopholes in the text is generally not recommended. Sure - it could be the case that the CMB authorities created a plan for a ski resort in Switzerland, but (as you say) it's very unlikely, and not supported by the text at all. I will refer you again to the explicit/implicit distinction I made in the video - it is EXPLICITLY stated in the text that the plan is the first in the French Alps, and nothing is even implied to suggest that the CMB authorities have made other climate plans elsewhere. Therefore, the answer here will be "true", and not "probably true". I hope this helps, and appreciate your effort in challenging me (and all of us) to think things through :-) Shlomik
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Thanks so much for getting back to me and for considering the (sometimes super dubious) points I've made. Genuinely really grateful that you've taken the time to do so. As you suggested, I think that the test has some inherent drawbacks in that the official answers can be open to doubt. In any case, your video and answers have definitely helped!
Why isn't 1) probably true ? The question asks whether they "prepared" whereas the essay mentions that it was "introduced". Is it not possible that the authorities might have prepared a plan before but this is only their first time introducing it?
Thank you. I don't agree with the answer to question 2 (26/40) @34:32 : 20% of programers on this project could be 100% or 80% (...) of the programers of the company. So you cannot conclude that most programmers did not work on the magic number software. What do you think ?
Hi! Sorry, I didn't follow your reasoning... What the statement tells us is that 20% of the programmers in Wisdom Software worked on MagicNumber. The wording may not be perfect, but I think there isn't really any other way to understand it. So, if 20% of the company's programmers worked on the project, it necessarily means that 80% of them didn't.
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Thank you for your answer. To me : It does not tell us that 20% of the company's programmers worked on the projet. It tells us that 20% of the people who worked on the projet, are programmers. It states : "With its developpement involving 20% of programmers". So yeah the wording is not perfect at all and can change the expected answer.
@@Yoneal977 I understand. However, remember that this somewhat ambiguous wording was taken as-is from the Clifford Chance WG practice test. This is rather common in other official WG practice tests and naturally on the actual test. That's one of the reasons why practicing with genuine prep material is so important.
You are amazing! I can't even explain how happy I am that I found your video. I tried using every platform to learn the Watson-Glaser, but this is the only resource that has truly helped me. I'm so grateful-thank you so much!!!!
Thank you so much for your kind words! So glad it helped you! 🙂
Hi, thanks for the video it's super helpful! For question 22, I don't understand why roads being unsuitable for loads over one ton necessarily means that they are passable for loads under one ton - the fact that A is unsuitable to B does not necessarily mean A is suitable to non-B, the road could be unsuitable for both, in that case the statement would have selectively mentioned only one of the categories, but the lack of mention of the other does not necessarily say anything about it
I'm glad you found it helpful! As for your question:
TL;DR - It can be assumed that not all information is provided in a statement, but it should not be assumed that an arbitrary concealment of knowledge has been made. Please see the elaborate explanation below.
You will nearly always find yourself disagreeing with a couple of the provided answers in a Watson Glaser - that's a part of the test's nature. You can become better-practiced and more familiar with it, but there will never be a definite, full set of rules to follow, and such disagreements will always exist, to an extent. However, as this is the official correct answer provided by the Watson Glaser test, I'll do my best to explain, even though it's admittedly difficult.
It is true that it is possible that the roads are impassable for vehicles of over, say, 500 kg, but the author chose to arbitrarily mention a higher number as the limit. However, that would mean that the text is skewing reality in a very uncommon way. For instance, had the text mentioned that "the road is impassable for trucks" then we really can't deduce anything else about other types of vehicles - but giving a single piece of data (a number) that misrepresents reality is not a part of the assumptions normally made in the WG test.
This is genuinely difficult to explain and I hope I didn't get you more confused... This is why this test takes so much practice and variety.
Shlomik
Hi Shlomik. Thank you for the video and your explanations. They are extremely useful.
I do however find myself agreeing with my colleague here regarding question 22. From what I have seen, it is not uncommon for Watson Glaser tests to include information which is intentionally used to misguide students. It seems quite hard to determine when information is added for what reason, and at least for me this is a large reason why I find myself overthinking when doing the test.
I still did not understand your explanation so perhaps I could rephrase the question: If the conclusion NECESSARILY has to follow in the deduction section, then on what basis - from the words in the statement - can we determine that roads into the capital specifically (as opposed to other regions in the area) are passable?
Thanks for your time and help
@@tawfeegallam4917 Thanks for taking the time to give me this feedback!
At the end of the day, I may personally also disagree with some of the answers regarded as correct in the WG test. This is logical/verbal reasoning, not math, and after all is said and done, there can still be disagreements.
However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I am presenting the officialy correct answers for this WG test, and do my best to explain why they are correct - with all their possible problems and shortcomings.
You rephrased the question so I'll rephrase my explanation. From the words "roads...unsuitable for loads over one ton" we can deduce that they are suitable for loads under 1 ton. Because, if in "reality" the roads are impassable for loads over 500 kg, or impassable for any vehicle, but the text mentions 1 ton, this means the text is literally LYING, which can't be the case.
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it!
I've signed up and completed job test prep. Do you recommend any other question banks ?
First of all - well done! I know there are other prep courses on the market, but I haven't looked into them so I can't recommend any. However, most websites usually offer some sort of free sample material. Now that you have completed the JTP practice, you can check out those to see if they provide good value.
Excellent video. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this.
Thanks for the feedback! Glad you liked it :)
Thank you for this. This has been really helpful
Thank you so much for this!!!
Really helpful video! However, I am slightly confused by the answers to a few of the questions.
Question 1 - your answer was 'true'. However, we are only told that the plan was the first one introduced in the area. From a strictly logical perspective, it's possible that the Chamonix -Mont-Blanc Valley authorities could have created a plan in a different area (even though, we can almost certainly assume by their name that they have not done so). Based on this would the answer not be "probably true"?
Question 14 - your answer was "assumption made". Your explanation was that the thrill is 'THE' reward itself. However, the text only says that courage is 'A' reward. Surely this leaves open the possibility that other forms of reward may be possible, such as special recognition? We are not given any information on whether other forms of reward are required or not - but there is the possibility that they could be. Therefore, should the answer not be "assumption not made"?
Question 28 - your answer was "conclusion follows". However, we are only told in the text that a fewer AMOUNT of programmers, and a larger AMOUNT of marketing staff are involved. We are not told about the percentages involved. The percentages could still have remained the same if for example the company got rid of a proportionate amount of programmers/marketing staff in the interim period. To give an extreme example, let's say there were 100 programmers for the first product, 20 of which worked on it. Then, the company fired 90 programmers, leaving just 10. For the second product, only 2 of the remaining 10 programmers were involved. In this case, even though fewer programmers are involved, in both instances, 20% of the programmers are working. As such, the conclusion does not follow necessarily (but I guess maybe it does follow beyond reasonable doubt?). In any case, I'm not convinced that your explanation in the video follows.
Would be super grateful to hear your thoughts on this!
Hi and thanks for the feedback!
Firstly, I'll say that the answers provided in the video are not based on my personal perspective. They are the officially correct answers for this Clifford Chance sample test. As such, I might sometimes disagree with any particular answer (and I actually did :) - but the best I can do to help candidates is to provide the reasoning as for WHY these answers are defined as correct.
Now, as for question 1:
It should be understood from the text that the Chamonix-Mont Blanc valley is found within the French Alps, not the other way around. From the fact that Chamonix is a ski resort, and the French Alps are a mountain range, we can deduce that the former is contained within the latter. Therefore, if the plan is the first climate and energy action plan in the French Alps, it also has to be the first to be ever done by the C-MB authorities.
As for question 14:
The fact that the assumption is made does not mean that special recognition can NEVER be the reward of facing unplanned assignments. What it means that IF one believes that it is possible that the reward in facing unplanned assignments is the thrill or courage required to do so, THEN one must assume that no special recognition is REQUIRED. This reasoning does not eliminate other options for rewards, but if you say that the thrill can be the reward itself, you have to necessarily believe that it is not REQUIRED (this is the keyword here) to have any special recognition. This is hard to explain in writing, I hope it's somewhat clearer...
As for question 28:
Your added scenario of the company firing a number of employees is an overcomplication of the problem that should not be considered when solving questions in the interpretation section. In the interpretation section, we aim to decide whether the conclusion follows beyond a reasonable doubt, and not if there is any wild scenario we can imagine in which the conclusion won't follow. Nothing is mentioned in the text about firing employees, so that is not a scenario you should take into account when approaching the question.
Note that the scenario you suggested does not fall under the category of "alternative explanations" I present in the end of the section. It adds additional (and rather complex) assumptions that were not made in the text. That is in contrast to additional assumptions made in the conclusion, as in, for instance, question 31.
I hope these explanations clarify and wish you the best of luck with your test.
Shlomik
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep
Thanks for the reply! I'm still slightly puzzled by q1 and q14. I hope it doesn't come across as if I'm being overly pedantic, but I'm curious to know whether you think the points I've made are justifiable at all, or whether in your perspective, the official answers are definitely correct.
For q1, there are two things I'd say. 1) I agree that we can deduce that Chamonix is found within the French Alps. My point was that, strictly speaking, there remains the (incredibly unlikely) possibility that this authority created an energy action plan for a different region, outside the French Alps. For example, they were asked to create a plan by their good friends at a Swiss regional authority for a resort in the Swiss Alps. (Note I understand this is completely absurd, but my point is that logically, we cannot say that the answer is *definitely* true). 2) Another point that I didn't make initially is the difference in wording in the text and statement: "created" vs "introduced". It is possible that the authorities created a plan previously but decided to discard it and not introduce it.
For q14, you say that "if you say that the thrill can be the reward itself, you have to necessarily believe that it is not REQUIRED (this is the keyword here) to have any special recognition". I completely agree. However, the text says that the courage to undertake an unplanned assignment is "A" reward in itself, not "THE" reward. I think this distinction matters because it means that we cannot reject the possibility that other rewards are *required*, or are even the main reward. If we take for granted that special recognition IS required, we can still make the statement that "the courage to undertake an unplanned assignment is a reward in itself".
As an analogy, if I made the statement, "the satisfaction of completing a full working day at Clifford Chance is a reward in itself", I am not making the assumption that "working at Clifford Chance requires no compensation because of the reward of satisfaction". I feel like the more I read this question, the more confused I get, so please let me know if you think this analogy doesn't map on!
Your explanation for q28 makes perfect sense to me!
I can understand the point you're making regarding q14 - the analogy you made for Clifford Chance is rather convincing :) I think you have a valid argument. Again, knowing the correct answer to this question, I couldn't provide this reasoning as an explanation, but so is the nature of the Watson Glaser test. At the end of the day, it isn't math, and the correct answers could be disagreed upon.
As for q1 - My apologies, but in this case I definitely think you got this wrong. While the WG test is a test of critical thinking, the mindset of trying to find the very unlikely, hypothetical loopholes in the text is generally not recommended. Sure - it could be the case that the CMB authorities created a plan for a ski resort in Switzerland, but (as you say) it's very unlikely, and not supported by the text at all.
I will refer you again to the explicit/implicit distinction I made in the video - it is EXPLICITLY stated in the text that the plan is the first in the French Alps, and nothing is even implied to suggest that the CMB authorities have made other climate plans elsewhere. Therefore, the answer here will be "true", and not "probably true".
I hope this helps, and appreciate your effort in challenging me (and all of us) to think things through :-)
Shlomik
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep
Thanks so much for getting back to me and for considering the (sometimes super dubious) points I've made. Genuinely really grateful that you've taken the time to do so. As you suggested, I think that the test has some inherent drawbacks in that the official answers can be open to doubt. In any case, your video and answers have definitely helped!
Why isn't 1) probably true ? The question asks whether they "prepared" whereas the essay mentions that it was "introduced".
Is it not possible that the authorities might have prepared a plan before but this is only their first time introducing it?
Please scroll down the comments section, I have explained it in detail in a previous comment about 3 weeks ago 🙂
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Found it, thank you :)
Thank you. I don't agree with the answer to question 2 (26/40) @34:32 : 20% of programers on this project could be 100% or 80% (...) of the programers of the company. So you cannot conclude that most programmers did not work on the magic number software. What do you think ?
Hi! Sorry, I didn't follow your reasoning... What the statement tells us is that 20% of the programmers in Wisdom Software worked on MagicNumber. The wording may not be perfect, but I think there isn't really any other way to understand it. So, if 20% of the company's programmers worked on the project, it necessarily means that 80% of them didn't.
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Thank you for your answer. To me : It does not tell us that 20% of the company's programmers worked on the projet. It tells us that 20% of the people who worked on the projet, are programmers. It states : "With its developpement involving 20% of programmers". So yeah the wording is not perfect at all and can change the expected answer.
@@Yoneal977 I understand. However, remember that this somewhat ambiguous wording was taken as-is from the Clifford Chance WG practice test. This is rather common in other official WG practice tests and naturally on the actual test. That's one of the reasons why practicing with genuine prep material is so important.
@@Aptitude-Test-Prep Thank you. I finally passed it and get a 75% wich is ok for me
So glad to hear!
thanks post more videos
THANKS!!! It´s an amazing video