Watson Glaser Deduction Section: Tips & Strategies with Free Questions
•
Watson Glaser Deduction Section Overview
The Deduction section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) is designed to assess how well you can determine whether a conclusion follows logically from a given statement. It doesn’t test what you know, but how you think.
The following questions consist of brief texts followed by suggested final statements. You need to determine if the conclusion makes sense based on the details provided in the passage.
Key Challenge: The test requires you to accept the statement as true regardless of any conflicting information you might know. Your responsibility is to disregard all external information and concentrate solely on the provided details.
Question Format:
A brief factual statement (the premises)
A proposed conclusion
Your task: Choose whether the conclusion follows or does not follow
This section measures your ability to apply strict logic. It rewards clarity of thought and punishes assumptions.
To sharpen this skill efficiently, you need structured, test-like practice. That’s exactly what you get with TestRocket.ai — a smarter way to prep, built around your unique strengths and weaknesses.
Why Is the Deduction Section Important?
Employers use the Deduction section to measure analytical rigor. In roles involving legal analysis, strategic thinking, finance, and management, this skill is essential.
Hiring managers are looking for candidates who:
- Analyse complex situations rationally
- Make decisions based on evidence
- Avoid cognitive biases or guesswork
Tips for the Watson Glaser Deduction Section
Below you can find our Free Watson Glaser Deduction Questions with tips on how to pass the questions from this Watson Glaser section effectively.
You can see our 7 tips, each accompanied by a detailed explanation and questions. At the end, after you pass the quiz, you can see all the answers with detailed explanations:
Think of our Free Watson Glaser Deduction Quiz as your go-to workout for clear, logical thinking. You’ll get seven simple, actionable tips - each paired with a practice question, the right answer, and a friendly walk-through of why it works. It’s like having a patient tutor by your side, helping you build confidence and accuracy with every deduction.
1
Read each question carefully before selecting your answer.
2
Navigate between questions using the Previous/Next buttons.
3
Submit your quiz to receive detailed results and explanations.
Always treat the premises in each question as universally and unquestionably true. Even if they contradict real-world knowledge, your task is to work within their logical boundaries.
Assume Universal Truth Tip - Question 1 of 2
Statement:
All employees at Nexora Corp are required to work weekends. No person who works weekends is eligible for remote work.
Some employees at Nexora Corp are not eligible for remote work.
Assume Universal Truth Tip - Question 2 of 2
Statement:
All employees at Nexora Corp are required to work weekends. No person who works weekends is eligible for remote work.
Some people who are eligible for remote work are employees at Nexora Corp.
Tip number 1: Rely Solely on the Given Premises
Don’t allow your own beliefs or assumptions to influence your answer. Stick strictly to what’s written.
Assume Universal Truth Tip - Question 1 of 2
Statement:
The first quarter saw 60% of audit reports delivered according to schedule. Several reports that arrived late were found to be missing essential financial information. The audit reports received no rejection solely because of delayed submission.
Some audit reports submitted late were accepted.
Assume Universal Truth Tip - Question 2 of 2
Statement:
The first quarter saw 60% of audit reports delivered according to schedule. Several reports that arrived late were found to be missing essential financial information. The audit reports received no rejection solely because of delayed submission.
All audit reports that were submitted late were missing key financial data.
Tip number 3: Use the NOT Triangle Technique (Negative, Only, Transpose)
Rephrasing a statement using combinations of negation, exclusivity, and reversal can help clarify its logical structure.
Example: Original: “All carrots are orange.”
(Negative + Transpose): All things that are not orange are not carrots.
(Only + Negative): Only orange things are carrots.
(Only + Transpose): If it’s not a carrot, it’s not orange.
Use the NOT Triangle Technique (Negative, Only, Transpose) Tip - Question 1 of 2
Only licensed attorneys are permitted to present oral arguments in federal appellate courts. Several licensed attorneys choose not to take on appellate cases.
Anyone who is not a licensed attorney is not permitted to present oral arguments in federal appellate courts.
Use the NOT Triangle Technique (Negative, Only, Transpose) Tip - Question 2 of 2
Only licensed attorneys are permitted to present oral arguments in federal appellate courts. Several licensed attorneys choose not to take on appellate cases.
All licensed attorneys present oral arguments in federal appellate courts.
Tip number 4:Don’t Trust Intuition Alone
Intuition can mislead you in logical tests. Instead, apply structured techniques such as Venn diagrams or symbolic logic — both of which are supported inside the TestRocket.ai platform.
Don’t Trust Intuition Alone Tip - Question 1 of 2
Statement:
Most executive team members attend quarterly planning meetings. A few senior advisors also attend those meetings, but not all executive team members are senior advisors.
All senior advisors are executive team members.
Don’t Trust Intuition Alone Tip - Question 2 of 2
Statement:
Most executive team members attend quarterly planning meetings. A few senior advisors also attend those meetings, but not all executive team members are senior advisors.
Some meeting attendees are neither senior advisors nor executive team members.
Tip number 4:Apply Venn Diagrams for Clarity
Venn diagrams are a powerful visual tool for understanding logical relationships between sets. In deduction problems, you can draw circles to represent different groups or categories mentioned in the premise. By visually mapping overlaps or exclusions between these circles, you can more easily determine whether a conclusion logically follows.
Example: If a premise says "All A are B," you draw circle A completely within circle B. If the proposed conclusion says "Some B are A," the diagram makes it immediately clear that this must be true. This kind of visual reasoning reduces errors, especially with complex logical structures.
Apply Venn Diagrams for Clarity Tip - Question 1 of 2
Several managers at the regional office participate in the company’s mentorship programme. Only employees with at least three years of tenure are eligible for mentorship. A few participants in the programme are based at the headquarters.
Some employees with less than three years of tenure participate in the mentorship programme.
Apply Venn Diagrams for Clarity Tip - Question 2 of 2
Several managers at the regional office participate in the company’s mentorship programme. Only employees with at least three years of tenure are eligible for mentorship. A few participants in the programme are based at the headquarters.
Some regional office managers have at least three years of tenure.
Tip number 4: Watch Out for Absolute
Words like "always," "only," or "never" demand closer scrutiny. They increase the difficulty in justifying the conclusion.
Watch Out for Absolute Tip - Question 1 of 2
No contractors who missed the cybersecurity onboarding deadline were granted system access. Among the project team, several external consultants received access credentials last week. A compliance report noted that a handful of contractors completed onboarding retroactively.
All consultants who received access credentials last week met the cybersecurity onboarding deadline.
Watch Out for Absolute Tip - Question 2 of 2
No contractors who missed the cybersecurity onboarding deadline were granted system access. Among the project team, several external consultants received access credentials last week. A compliance report noted that a handful of contractors completed onboarding retroactively.
Some contractors who completed onboarding late may still have received access.
Tip number 4: Practice Formal Logic
Become comfortable with common logic forms such as syllogisms:
All A are B. C is A. Therefore, C is B.
Practice Formal Logic Tip - Question 1 of 2
Of the 48 professionals assigned to the 2024 judicial review task force, 16 were appointed as lead investigators. Anyone appointed as a lead investigator must submit a conflict-of-interest disclosure within 48 hours of assignment. According to the committee report, all required disclosures were submitted on time.
Each of the 16 lead investigators submitted a conflict-of-interest disclosure within 48 hours.
Practice Formal Logic Tip - Question 2 of 2
Of the 48 professionals assigned to the 2024 judicial review task force, 16 were appointed as lead investigators. Anyone appointed as a lead investigator must submit a conflict-of-interest disclosure within 48 hours of assignment. According to the committee report, all required disclosures were submitted on time.
Some of the 32 task force members who were not appointed as lead investigators also submitted disclosures.
Quiz Complete!
Keep practicing to improve your score.
0%
Your Score
14
Total Pages
RETRY
Result
Review Your Answers
Question 1
Statement:
All employees at Nexora Corp are required to work weekends. No person who works weekends is eligible for remote work.
Some employees at Nexora Corp are not eligible for remote work.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Follows
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Follows
Explanation:
We are told:
1️⃣ All employees at Nexora Corp → must work weekends
2️⃣ No weekend workers → are eligible for remote work
So:
All Nexora employees → are weekend workers → not eligible for remote work
✅ Therefore, some Nexora employees not being eligible for remote work logically follows.
Question 2
Statement:
All employees at Nexora Corp are required to work weekends. No person who works weekends is eligible for remote work.
Some people who are eligible for remote work are employees at Nexora Corp.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
From the premises, all Nexora employees must work weekends, and no one who works weekends can do remote work.
So Nexora employees cannot be eligible for remote work.
Therefore, the idea that some remote-eligible workers are employed at Nexora contradicts the premises.
❌ The conclusion does not follow.
Question 3
Statement:
The first quarter saw 60% of audit reports delivered according to schedule. Several reports that arrived late were found to be missing essential financial information. The audit reports received no rejection solely because of delayed submission.
Some audit reports submitted late were accepted.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Follows
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Follows
Explanation:
We are told that no audit reports were rejected solely due to lateness. This implies that being late was not an automatic disqualifier.
✅ So, it is logically possible — and likely — that some late reports were accepted, making the conclusion valid.
Question 4
Statement:
The first quarter saw 60% of audit reports delivered according to schedule. Several reports that arrived late were found to be missing essential financial information. The audit reports received no rejection solely because of delayed submission.
All audit reports that were submitted late were missing key financial data.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
The statement says that several late reports were missing financial data — not all.
❌ “Several” means more than one, but doesn’t imply every single one.
Therefore, we cannot generalize this to all late reports.
✅ Conclusion does not follow.
Question 5
Only licensed attorneys are permitted to present oral arguments in federal appellate courts. Several licensed attorneys choose not to take on appellate cases.
Anyone who is not a licensed attorney is not permitted to present oral arguments in federal appellate courts.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Follows
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Follows
Explanation:
This is a restatement using the Only + Negative structure.
“Only licensed attorneys can argue in court” → means if you are not a licensed attorney, you are not allowed to argue.
✅ This is a logically valid transformation and must be true.
Question 6
Only licensed attorneys are permitted to present oral arguments in federal appellate courts. Several licensed attorneys choose not to take on appellate cases.
All licensed attorneys present oral arguments in federal appellate courts.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
We’re explicitly told that several licensed attorneys choose not to argue in appellate courts.
❌ Therefore, we cannot claim that all of them do — the premise directly contradicts that.
✅ Conclusion does not follow.
Question 7
Statement:
Most executive team members attend quarterly planning meetings. A few senior advisors also attend those meetings, but not all executive team members are senior advisors.
All senior advisors are executive team members.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
This might feel true because both groups attend the same meetings — but that’s just surface logic.
We're only told that:
Most executives attend,
A few senior advisors attend,
But not all executives are advisors.
There’s no claim at all that all senior advisors are part of the executive team.
✅ So, trusting your intuition could mislead you.
✅ The conclusion does not follow.
Question 8
Statement:
Most executive team members attend quarterly planning meetings. A few senior advisors also attend those meetings, but not all executive team members are senior advisors.
Some meeting attendees are neither senior advisors nor executive team members.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
We’re told who attends:
Most executive team members
A few senior advisors
There’s no information about anyone else being present.
You might assume other people attend, but logically, you can’t conclude it from what’s stated.
✅ This conclusion adds unstated info — it does not follow.
Question 9
Several managers at the regional office participate in the company’s mentorship programme. Only employees with at least three years of tenure are eligible for mentorship. A few participants in the programme are based at the headquarters.
Some employees with less than three years of tenure participate in the mentorship programme.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
We are told that only employees with at least three years of tenure are eligible.
That excludes all those with less than three years from participating — no exceptions.
A Venn diagram would show the mentorship group entirely within the “3+ years of tenure” group.
✅ Therefore, the conclusion is logically impossible and does not follow.
Question 10
Several managers at the regional office participate in the company’s mentorship programme. Only employees with at least three years of tenure are eligible for mentorship. A few participants in the programme are based at the headquarters.
Some regional office managers have at least three years of tenure.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Follows
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Follows
Explanation:
We know that some regional office managers participate in the mentorship programme.
And we also know that only employees with 3+ years of tenure can participate.
So, the managers who are participating must have at least three years.
✅ A Venn diagram would confirm this overlap, making the conclusion logically valid.
Question 11
No contractors who missed the cybersecurity onboarding deadline were granted system access. Among the project team, several external consultants received access credentials last week. A compliance report noted that a handful of contractors completed onboarding retroactively.
All consultants who received access credentials last week met the cybersecurity onboarding deadline.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
The conclusion uses the word “all,” which is an absolute.
We’re told some consultants received credentials, but we are not told explicitly whether every one of them met the deadline - only that those who missed the deadline were denied access.
Some may have completed onboarding late and still been granted access retroactively, as the report mentions.
✅ Because we can’t confirm it applies to all, the conclusion does not follow.
Question 12
No contractors who missed the cybersecurity onboarding deadline were granted system access. Among the project team, several external consultants received access credentials last week. A compliance report noted that a handful of contractors completed onboarding retroactively.
Some contractors who completed onboarding late may still have received access.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Follows
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Follows
Explanation:
The compliance report says some contractors completed onboarding retroactively.
We also know only those who missed the original deadline were denied access — but not whether retroactive completion overrides that.
This creates a reasonable possibility that some late completers did get access, especially since access credentials were issued last week.
✅ Therefore, the conclusion logically follows.
Question 13
Of the 48 professionals assigned to the 2024 judicial review task force, 16 were appointed as lead investigators. Anyone appointed as a lead investigator must submit a conflict-of-interest disclosure within 48 hours of assignment. According to the committee report, all required disclosures were submitted on time.
Each of the 16 lead investigators submitted a conflict-of-interest disclosure within 48 hours.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Follows
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Follows
Explanation:
We’re told:
All lead investigators must submit disclosures within 48 hours.
The report confirms all required disclosures were submitted on time.
Since only lead investigators are required to submit disclosures, and all such disclosures were submitted, the conclusion follows.
Question 14
Of the 48 professionals assigned to the 2024 judicial review task force, 16 were appointed as lead investigators. Anyone appointed as a lead investigator must submit a conflict-of-interest disclosure within 48 hours of assignment. According to the committee report, all required disclosures were submitted on time.
Some of the 32 task force members who were not appointed as lead investigators also submitted disclosures.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Conclusion Does Not Follow
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow
Explanation:
We are not told anything about disclosure requirements for non-lead investigators. The statement focuses only on the 16 who were appointed.
Without information about the 32 others, we cannot say whether any of them submitted disclosures.
➡️ Therefore, this conclusion does not follow.
If you’d like to practise the full Watson Glaser test, rather than only the Deduction section, please visit our related article on free Watson Glaser practice questions.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Using General Knowledge: Every answer must be derived from the text alone.
Making Assumptions: Conclusions must follow only from what's presented.
Misreading the Conclusion: Take time to fully understand what's being claimed before responding.
Preparing for Watson Glaser Test
Learn the 5 Sections Know how Deduction fits into the larger framework of the test: Inference, Assumptions, Deduction, Interpretation, and Evaluation.
Use AI-Powered Practice Tools TestRocket.ai delivers dynamic, evolving practice — adapting to your strengths and weaknesses over time.
Focus on Accuracy, Then Speed Nail the logic first. Speed comes next. TestRocket.ai helps you do both.
Learn From Feedback Our platform gives detailed explanations for every question. You don’t just answer — you understand.
Build a Smart Routine TestRocket.ai lets you set daily targets, track progress, and focus on high-impact improvement zones.
Final Thoughts: Train Your Brain Like a Pro
The Deduction section isn’t about raw intelligence — it’s about strategy, logic, and consistent practice.
FAQs Watson Glaser Deductive Section
What is the main goal of the Deduction section in the Watson Glaser test?
The Deduction section tests your ability to logically evaluate whether a conclusion follows from a given set of premises. It's not about what you personally believe or know — it's about analysing the internal logic of a statement based solely on the information provided.
Can I use real-world knowledge to answer Deduction questions?
No. In fact, using outside knowledge can lead to incorrect answers. You must treat all premises as 100% true, regardless of how unrealistic or contradictory they may seem, and base your judgment only on the given information.
How do Venn diagrams help with Deduction questions?
Venn diagrams visually represent relationships between sets or groups. In deduction tasks, they can help clarify overlaps, exclusions, and logical connections, making it easier to determine if a conclusion logically follows.
What’s the NOT Triangle technique in the Deduction section, and how can it help?
The NOT Triangle stands for Negative, Only, and Transpose — three ways to rephrase a statement without changing its meaning. Using two of these at a time can help break down and clarify logical premises, making it easier to evaluate conclusions accurately.
Why is the Deduction section so challenging for most candidates?
Because it demands pure logic — you must treat the premises as absolute truth, even if they sound unrealistic in real life.
Our brains love adding “common sense,” but that’s where people go wrong.
TestRocket.ai’s practice questions train you to switch off assumptions and focus only on what’s written.
What’s the difference between Deduction and Interpretation in the Watson Glaser test?
Deduction: A conclusion must follow 100% logically from the premises — no exceptions.
Interpretation: A conclusion only needs to follow beyond reasonable doubt.
It’s a subtle but vital difference.
On TestRocket.ai, you’ll find side-by-side examples that make this distinction crystal clear.
Can a conclusion ever be “partly true” in the Deduction section?
No — in Deduction, it either follows or does not follow.
There’s no middle ground.
That’s why learning to spot the all-or-nothing logic is so important.
Practising with clear explanations on TestRocket.ai helps you build this black-and-white reasoning skill.
How should I manage time on Deduction questions?
ith only about 30 minutes for the whole test, you’ll need to answer Deduction questions in under a minute each.
A smart strategy: quickly diagram the premise (using Venn diagrams or short notes) before evaluating the conclusion.
You can rehearse this timed method with TestRocket.ai’s simulated tests.
Are Deduction questions in Watson Glaser harder for law candidates?
Not necessarily — the questions are the same across industries.
But law firms usually set higher score cut-offs, so accuracy in Deduction becomes even more crucial.
That’s why TestRocket.ai puts extra emphasis on this section in its practice packs for law applicants.
What’s the fastest way to get better at Deduction questions?
Drills + explanations.
Don’t just answer questions — study the reasoning behind each correct answer.
Every mistake is a lesson in logic.
On TestRocket.ai, every Deduction practice question comes with a breakdown that shows you exactly why the conclusion does or doesn’t follow.
Related articles to Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Test
Join our growing community of successful candidates who aced their tests with TestRocket's AI-powered preparation. Start practicing today with our 30-day money-back guarantee.