Linklaters Critical Thinking Test

Are you a critical thinker?

Critical thinking involves interpreting information to form well-justified conclusions, and is an
essential skill in the legal profession.

This sample of questions, taken from the Watson‐Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, is designed to
help you find out if you’re a critical thinker. It’s also an indication of the tasks that you might
complete if you were invited to attend a formal assessment at Linklaters. The appraisal has long
been used in educational and business settings and is most often used to assess and determine a
candidate’s suitability for an organisation, or a specific position within it.

There are 15 questions for you to complete in 5 minutes. We’ve given you a timer on the website to
help you monitor your progress online. Refreshing your browser will lose your current responses and
you will have to start again. Although written by authors of formal assessments, these questions are
samples only and won’t be recorded or used to predict future performance, or as part of any
selection process that you might later undertake with Linklaters.

Good luck!
Section 1 – Interference
In this test, the exercise begins with a statement of facts that you are to regard as true. After the
statement of facts you will find several possible inferences i.e., conclusions that some persons might
draw from the stated facts. Examine each inference separately, and make a decision as to its degree
of truth or falsity.

Statement
An evaluation of a company’s success in financial terms is often referred to as the ‘bottom line’; a
reference to the last line of a company’s accounts showing their profit. The ‘triple bottom’ includes
environmental and social factors, along with economic – sometimes referred to as ‘people, planet,
profit’.

The ‘people’ element refers to the fair treatment of everyone the company impacts on, not just
immediate employees. ‘Planet’ refers to environmental impact with companies considering
sustainability and seeking to neutralise their environmental impact. Some companies have
voluntarily adopted the triple bottom line, though many are now required to use a ‘double bottom
line’ due to legislation requiring assessment of environmental impact.

Inference 1
Companies are free to choose whether they adopt double bottom line accounting.
 True
 Probably true
 Insufficient data
 Probably false
 False

Inference 2
The need to have a positive social and environmental impact can adversely affect financial success.
 True
 Probably true
 Insufficient data
 Probably false
 False

Inference 3
According to triple bottom line accounting, a successful company would be financially,
environmentally and socially successful.
 True
 Probably true
 Insufficient data
 Probably false
 False
Section 2 – Recognition of assumptions
Below is a statement followed by several proposed assumptions. You are to decide for each
assumption whether a person, in making the given statement, is really making that assumption i.e.,
taking it for granted, justifiably or not. If you think that the given assumption is taken for granted in
the statement, select YES on the answer section. If you think the assumption is not necessarily taken
for granted in the statement, select NO instead. Remember to judge each assumption
independently.

Statement
Health care professionals who collaborate with each other provide better care to their patients.

Assumption 1
Health care professionals who work in isolation do not have the best interest of patients in mind.
 Yes
 No

Assumption 2
A health care professional may not possess all the required expertise to treat some patients.
 Yes
 No

Assumption 3
Health care professionals who collaborate with each other have the primary goal of improving their
patient’s health.
 Yes
 No
Section 3 – Deduction
In this test, the exercise consists of a statement (premise) followed by several suggested conclusions.
For the purpose of this test, consider the statement in the exercise as true without exception. Read
the conclusion beneath the statement. If you think it necessarily follows from the statement given,
select YES in the answer section. If you think it is not a necessary conclusion from the statement
given select NO, even though you may believe it to be true from your general knowledge. Similarly,
read and judge each of the other conclusions. Try not to let your prejudices influence your
judgement - just stick to the given statement (premise) and judge whether each conclusion
necessarily follows.

Statement
A proportion of the induction presentations at Company X include health and safety guidelines.
Employees that attended a presentation containing health and safety guidelines had fewer accidents
at work than the average employee in the company.

Deduction 1
All those that attend an induction had fewer accidents than the average employee at the company.
 Yes
 No

Deduction 2
Only a proportion of the employees who attended an induction had fewer accidents than the
average employee at the company.
 Yes
 No

Deduction 3
Induction processes are beneficial to an organisation.
 Yes
 No
Section 4 – Interpretation
The following exercise consists of a short paragraph followed by several suggested conclusions. For
the purpose of this test, assume that everything in the short paragraph is true. The problem is to
judge whether or not each of the proposed conclusions logically follows beyond a reasonable doubt
from the information given in the paragraph. If you think that the proposed conclusion follows
beyond a reasonable doubt (even though it may not follow absolutely and necessarily), select YES in
the answer section. If you think that the conclusion does not follow beyond a reasonable doubt from
the facts given, select NO instead.

Statement
In Country X, nine hours after drinking a standard (75cl) bottle of red wine (in the space of one
hour), 90% of adults tested in a large scientific study still had blood alcohol levels exceeding the legal
level that allows them to drive in that country.

Interpretation 1
More than 90% of those who drink a standard bottle of wine (in the space of an hour) and then drive
two hours later are over the legal alcohol limit to drive.
 Yes
 No

Interpretation 2
No adult who has drunk 75cl of red wine in the space of an hour has blood alcohol levels allowing
them to drive six hours later.
 Yes
 No

Interpretation 3
People who have blood alcohol levels above the legal range are worse drivers than others.
 Yes
 No
Section 5 – Evaluation of arguments
In the next section there is a question followed by several arguments. For the purpose of this test,
you are to regard each argument as true. The problem then is to decide whether it is a strong or a
weak argument.

Statement
A country facing a problem of population growth caused largely by people living longer, should seek
to significantly reduce levels of immigration in aiming for a solution.

Argument 1
No; this could reduce the size of the active workforce necessary to economically support the ageing
population.
 Strong
 Weak

Argument 2
Yes; it is a quick and visible action towards a solution.
 Strong
 Weak

Argument 3
No; immigrants are too easily targeted to take the blame for a country’s population problems.
 Strong
 Weak
Correct answers

Section 1 – Interference
Inference 1 - The correct answer is 'False', as the scenario states that "many are now required to
use a ‘double bottom line’ due to legislation", meaning that double bottom line accounting is a legal
requirement for some companies.

Inference 2 - The answer is 'Insufficient data', as no information is given in the scenario about how
considering the social and environmental impact may affect financial success either positively or
negatively.

Inference 3 - The answer is 'True', as the scenario states that a company’s success has been
evaluated in financial terms, but that the use of triple bottom line adds an evaluation of
environmental and social factors to this. Using triple bottom line accounting, the success of a
company would therefore be evaluated in relation to their financial, environmental and social
performance.

Section 2 – Recognition of assumptions

Assumption 1 - Although this is a possibility, there is nothing in the statement to conclude about
health care professionals who do not collaborate with each other. Thus, this assumption is not made
in the statement and the answer is 'No'.

Assumption 2 - It is necessarily assumed that a health care professional may not possess all the
required expertise to treat some patients. Thus, this assumption is made in the statement and the
answer is 'Yes'.

Assumption 3 - There is nothing in the statement to conclude that health care professional do not
collaborate for other reasons, such as for research studies. Thus, this assumption is not made in the
statement and the answer is 'No'.

Section 3 – Deduction
Deduction 1 - The answer is 'No', as the passage states that only a proportion of the induction
presentations included health and safety guidelines, leaving the rest of the induction presentations
without this content .

Deduction 2 - The answer is 'Yes' as only a proportion of induction presentations included health
and safety guidelines, and therefore those that did not receive this content would not have had its
accident reducing benefits.

Deduction 3 - The answer is 'No', as, in this context, induction presentations are only beneficial if
they incorporate aspects of health and safety.
Section 4 – Interpretation
Interpretation 1 - The answer is 'Yes', as it is safe to assume beyond reasonable doubt that if 90%
are unable to drive within the legal blood alcohol levels after 9 hours then 90% or above will also be
legally unable to drive after two hours.

Interpretation 2 - The correct answer is 'No', as there is no evidence to say that all people who
have drunk a bottle of wine will have blood alcohol levels exceeding the limit after six hours.

Interpretation 3 - The correct answer is 'No', although this is likely to be the case, there is no
information presented in the passage to support this.

Section 5 – Evaluation of arguments

Argument 1 - This is a 'Strong' argument put forward to challenge the proposal, identifying a key
flaw in reducing the number of immigrants and subsequent effect on the economy.

Argument 2 - A quick and visible solution does not necessarily make it a strong one. Therefore, this
is a 'Weak' argument.

Argument 3 - The argument lacks relation to the statement and does not put forward a strong case
as to why immigration levels should be reduced, therefore it is a 'Weak' argument.