Watson–Glaser Interpretation guide
Watson–Glaser Interpretation gives a passage and a proposed conclusion, and asks whether the conclusion follows beyond reasonable doubt. It is stricter than 'sounds plausible' and looser than formal logical proof.
The method
- Ask whether the passage puts the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
- If a reasonable alternative reading survives, the conclusion does not follow.
- Do not demand airtight logical proof — the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not certainty.
- Check the direction of any conditional before deciding.
How to apply the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard
Interpretation is binary. Ask whether the proposed conclusion is the natural, well-supported reading of the passage, not whether it is merely possible. At the same time, do not demand a formal proof stronger than the test's stated standard.
Try one disciplined counter-reading. If the passage can reasonably remain true while the conclusion is false, choose Does Not Follow. If defeating the conclusion requires inventing an unlikely exception or ignoring a direct rule, choose Follows.
Final check before you answer
- State the passage rule and the case fact separately.
- Apply the rule only in its written direction.
- Test one reasonable alternative before deciding that the conclusion follows.
Worked method example: apply the rule in its stated direction
Original teaching example. It is not a live provider question or a premium bank item.
Every application received before Friday was reviewed on Monday. Lina's application was received on Thursday of that week.
Task: Does the conclusion follow? Lina's application was reviewed on Monday.
Answer: Follows.
Why: Thursday is before Friday, so Lina's application meets the stated condition. The passage says every application meeting it was reviewed on Monday.
Strongest trap: The reverse claim would not follow: being reviewed on Monday would not prove that an application arrived before Friday.
Common mistakes
- Generic scepticism — deciding nothing ever 'follows'.
- Committing the converse of a conditional.
- Inflating the scope of the conclusion beyond the passage.
- Treating merely plausible as 'follows'.
Frequently asked questions
How is Interpretation different from Inference?
Inference grades an inference on a five-point scale; Interpretation is a binary 'follows / does not follow' judged at the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.
Practise this now
Preview the question styleOpen the drill
Watson-Glaser guide and rehearsal availability
Editorial responsibility: Alexander Torstensson. See the verification and corrections process.