Inference from Text - GRE Verbal

The engine may have overheated, but it is not certain. The conditional statement allows for the antecedent as a possible cause but does not necessitate it due to potential other factors.

Dana is a certified technician. The restrictive 'only' combined with the action logically requires the condition to be met for access to occur.

The author treats the studies as suggestive, not definitive. Noting limitations like small samples implies the author regards the evidence as preliminary rather than conclusive.

Always, never, proves, completely, impossible, must, all, none. These absolute terms often indicate an inference that oversteps the passage's evidence by claiming certainty without sufficient support.

It uses absolute language not warranted by the passage’s evidence. An inference is too strong when it employs definitive terms that exceed the qualified or limited evidence provided in the passage.

Choose the option with stronger, more direct textual support. Stronger textual support ensures the inference is more reliably derived from the passage without introducing unwarranted assumptions.

Inference is text-supported; speculation goes beyond what the text justifies. Inferences remain grounded in textual evidence, while speculation introduces unsupported possibilities beyond the passage.

Inference adds a supported implication; paraphrase restates explicitly stated ideas. Inferences extend the text by drawing implied conclusions, whereas paraphrases merely reword what is directly stated.

Cautious, qualified claims that match the passage’s support. Inference questions favor cautious choices because they align with the passage's evidence without overreaching into unsupported extremes.

A conclusion strongly supported by stated facts, without new assumptions. Valid inferences in GRE Verbal must derive directly from the text's explicit information, ensuring logical support without external assumptions.

The author views the drug as beneficial but risky. The concessive structure 'although' balances positive efficacy with negative risks, implying a nuanced authorial perspective.

Reducing pollution was a goal of the policy. Stating intention directly implies that the specified outcome was a deliberate objective of the policy's design.

Fraud was not proven by the researcher’s investigation. Lack of evidence discovery implies absence of proof, but does not confirm the non-existence of the phenomenon itself.

Not many applicants met the criteria. The term 'few' implies a small number, which logically supports the inference of not a large quantity without contradiction.

More than half of the residents supported the measure. The term 'most' denotes a majority, which by definition exceeds 50 percent of the total group.

At least one artifact was forged. The quantifier 'some' logically entails at least one instance, directly supported by the statement without additional assumptions.

No committee member voted against the proposal. The statement 'all voted for' logically implies no opposition, as it encompasses the entire group without exceptions.

It confuses rate changes with absolute quantity changes. This trap misinterprets proportional changes as shifts in total amounts, leading to unsupported inferences about quantities.

It turns correlation or sequence into causation without support. This trap assumes causation from mere association or timing, lacking textual evidence to justify the causal link.

It flips the direction of a relationship stated in the passage. Reversal traps invert the passage's stated relationships, creating inferences that contradict the original direction of evidence.

An answer generalizes beyond the passage’s limited group, time, or context. Scope traps occur when an answer extends the passage's specific evidence to broader, unsupported contexts or populations.

May, might, can, likely, tends to, suggests, some, often. Such qualifiers indicate inferences that appropriately hedge claims to match the tentative or partial support in the passage.

Locate the supporting lines and confirm no extra claim is added. This method ensures the choice is directly supported by the text without introducing unstated assumptions or extrapolations.