Development of Reasoning Abilities in Adolescent School

Students
Sumona Datta1 & Debdulal Dutta Roy2
Abstract: This study explores the basis of individual differences in the development of
different types of verbal reasoning abilities. A Verbal Reasoning Test Battery with five
reasoning subtests was administered to 672 boys and 372 girls of grades 8 to 10 with age
ranging from 11 years to 16 years of both English and Bengali medium high schools.
Principal Component Analysis with varimax rotation extracted two components, namely
Lower-order and Higher-order reasoning abilities, accounting for 38% and 32%
variances respectively. Further, 2 (Grade) 2 (Sex) 2 (Age) Univariate Analysis of
Variance was computed on the factor scores of both Lower-order and Higher-order
reasoning with medium of instruction being a covariate.
Results revealed that medium of instruction being in control, lower-order reasoning
scores of boys were higher than that of girls but higher-order reasoning scores of boys
were lower than that of girls. It was also noted that although there was no difference in
lower-order reasoning abilities of younger (less than 13 years) and older students (above
13 years), in case of higher-order reasoning abilities, the older students possessed
significantly higher ability than the younger students. This means, lower-order reasoning
abilities develop first and hence can be found among both younger and older groups of
adolescents; while higher-order reasoning abilities develop later and therefore can be
found only among the older age group. It was noted that development of higher-order
reasoning abilities is a function of the interaction between age and sex of the adolescent.
Again, as indicated by the findings, grade has no role to play in the development of
reasoning abilities. Thus, with increase in grade, academic curriculum increases, but this
does not necessarily mean that the reasoning ability of the adolescent will also increase.
Findings have implications in school counselling and development of teaching
pedagogy.
Key words: Verbal reasoning, reasoning test, adolescents.
INTRODUCTION

inferences drawn. Taking note of this, Kamphaus

(2001) defined reasoning as "that which follows
a reasonable inference or natural consequence;
deducible or defensible on the grounds of
consistency; reasonably believed or done". It is
therefore not only drawing an inference, but also
drawing an objective and consistent inference.

Reasoning is a transition in thought, where

some beliefs (or thoughts) provide the ground or
reason for coming to another (Adler & Rips,
2008). It deals with inferences or conclusions that
are drawn from a theory, a rule or a model
(Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991). According to
these definitions reasoning, therefore, is just the Verbal reasoning ability
process of drawing a conclusion based on some
Verbal reasoning includes understanding
given information. However, these definitions do
and reasoning using concepts framed in words. It
not recognize the importance of the validity of the

assesses the ability to think constructively and

not simple the verbal fluency or vocabulary
recognition (Datta & Dutta Roy, 2015). Verbal
reasoning ability involves five different abilities,
namely, Similarity-based reasoning, Synthesis,
Deductive reasoning, Knowledge sufficiency
and Symbolic representation. Similarity-based
reasoning is the ability that allows classifying
events or objects based on the proximity among
them. The proximity can be perceived based on
the resemblance among the events/objects. It is a
form of inductive reasoning. Synthesis is the
ability to manipulate relations among
objects/events and combine them to form an
interrelated meaningful whole. It requires
planning ability and reasoning of serial
positioning as in one has to plan and reason which
event comes first and which follows next in order
to form a meaningful whole. Deductive
reasoning is the ability to deduce inference
regarding the relationship between objects or
events, based on two or more premises (JohnsonLaird & Byrne, 1991). It is the form of reasoning
where the given propositions guarantee the truth
of the conclusions. Knowledge sufficiency is the
ability to reason whether a given set of
knowledge is sufficient enough to justify a
certain proposition. For verifying the truth of a
proposition, knowledge provided may not be
always sufficient. It is on the reasoner to decide
whether the given knowledge is sufficient. This
requires a complete understanding of the context
as well an explicit understanding of the given
knowledge. Finally Symbolic Representation is
the ability to code numerals and alphabets on the
basis of some assumed relationship among them.
Alphabets and numerals are verbal symbols used
to express abstract units of thinking. Alphabets
make up words which represent our concepts of
real world. Numerals, on the other hand, express
relations among numbers. Understanding of such
symbolic representation is fundamental in
critical thinking (Datta & Dutta Roy, 2015).
Obviously it is not easy to logicalize the
relations among given information and predict a
reasonable outcome based on the conceptual
understanding of the problem. It rather follows a
complex sequence of actions on the part of the

individual and therefore such ability is definitely

the result of years of gradual brain development
and knowledge acquisition (Piaget, 1952).
Factors influencing the development of
reasoning abilities
Role of Age
Perhaps the very first conception on the
development of reasoning abilities was given by
Piaget (1952) in his theory of Cognitive
development. In his theory Piaget, through the
description of four subsequent developmental
stages, described how children construct their
world. According to him human minds are not
born with all cognitive faculties, rather they
acquire the same through the motor and
perceptual activities which facilitate making
sense of the world in organized way (Berk,
2008). This occurs through the processes of
assimilation (using current schemes to interpret
the world), accommodation (creating or
adjusting new schemes along with old ones when
existing schemes do not suit the new situation)
and organization (rearranging and linking new
schemes with old ones in order to construct an
integrated cognitive system) (Piaget, 1952).
Thus using these processes children form
mental representations, acquire the abilities
to understand,
manipulate,
categorize,
organize events and form cognitive maps
which cumulatively leads to the development
of hypothetico-deductive reasoning in the last
stage of cognitive development. Thus
according to Piaget, reasoning ability develops
through a gradual process of development.
Piaget's theory is supported by more recent
theories in constructivist approach. Goswami
(1996), for e.g. proposed the relational-primacy
hypothesis according to which humans are born
with analogical reasoning but 'limited by their
knowledge' (p.88; Richland and Burchinal,
2013). Similarly Gentner and Rattermann (1991)
proposed the relational-shift theory on analogical
reasoning according to which initially children
reason non-analogically relying on appearancebased similarities before background knowledge
acquisition. With age and knowledge acquisition,
they 'shift' to analogical reasoning. This

hypothesis is similar to the hypothesis of

'naming-effect' proposed by Gelman & Coley
(1990) according to which children prefer to
categorize different events with similar labels
irrespective of the non-analogy.

logic. Then they apply their abstract appreciation

of logic to a wide variety of situations' (p.306;
2008). According to Kuhn (2000), the ability to
think about theories, deliberately isolate
variables and actively seek disconfirming
evidence can be hardly expected to be present
Similarly several researches have been done
before adolescence (Moshman, 1999). Thus age
to understand the process of development of
plays a significant role in the development of
more applied reasonin g abilities like
reasoning abilities.
mathematical reasoning and scientific reasoning.
According to the information processing Role of School grades
approach children do have limited basic
The importance of classroom teaching in the
knowledge in toddler age with respect to
cognitive development of a child has been
numerical relations (Kobayashi et al. 2004;
pointed out long back by Piaget (1952) in his
Lipton and Spelke, 2003; Xu and Spelke, 2000).
theory of cognitive development. As
Several researchers believe that mathematical
hypothesized by him, classroom practices should
reasoning develops based on informally acquired
be guided by three principles namely discovery
knowledge (Berk, 2008). Starkey (1992) found
learning (spontaneous discovery through
that children between 14-16 months children
interaction with environment), sensitivity to
acquire 'ordinality' i.e. the ability to order
children's readiness to learn (learning
relationships between quantities. As observed by
experiences building on current thinking and not
Sarnecka and Gelman (2004) children in early
any imposition) and acceptance of individual
childhood attains the ability to attach verbal
differences (sequence of development remains
labels to amounts and sizes and by age three they
same but rate differs). Vygotsky (1986) however
start counting (Berk, 2008). Further by age four,
advocated assisted learning and peer
children can master the counting and grasp the
collaboration as being the most important
principle of cardinality i.e. the ability to
assisting factors in classroom situation that
understand that the last word in a counting
promotes cognitive development.
sequence indicates the quantity of items in a set
According to these early theories academic
(Bermejo, 1996; Zur and Gelman, 2004). It is
during the middle childhood that children acquire curriculum and teaching practices, therefore play
the ability to understand basic numerical an important role in the development of
relations adequately and this facilitates their reasoning abilities. However, studies supporting
this view are sparse.
computational ability (Staub and Stern, 2002).
One of the most comprehensive theories on
the development of scientific reasoning is that
proposed by Deanna Kuhn (2000). Kuhn and her
collaborators (1988) found that the capability to
reason like a scientist improves with age and is
influenced by the years of schooling (Kuhn,
1993). It is also assumed that sophisticated
metacognitive understanding is at the heart of
scientific reasoning (Kuhn, 1999; Moshman,
1999). Berk (2008) reviewed microgenetic
research on the development of cognitive
abilities. According to this, 'children regularly pit
theory against evidence over many weeks they
experiment with various strategies, reflect on and
revise them, and become aware of the nature of

Present study
Following the review of literature it is noted
that reasoning ability although considered to
develop with age (Piaget, 1952), little has been
studied on the sex differences in the development
of reasoning abilities. Also there is a great dearth
of studies on whether academic curriculum plays
any role in the development of reasoning
abilities. The present study therefore, focused on
how the development of different types of verbal
reasoning abilities is affected by individual
factors like age, sex and grade.
Therefore the objective of the study is to
examine whether the development of these five

verbal reasoning abilities are affected by age, sex Procedure

and grade of the adolescent students.
The students were administered the test
Method
battery in groups after obtaining consent from the
respective authorities. Instructions were given
Participants
verbally and sample problems were explained
The whole test battery was administered to before the presentation of each subtest. The
994 school students (622 boys & 372 girls) of participants were asked to read them initially
grades eight, nine and ten of age range 11yrs to 16 before starting off each of the subtests. The
yrs. (Below 13 years=422 & above 13 years=571; instructions were also explained in lucid
Mean age= 13.84 years; SD= 1.23). 43% (n=431) language, sometimes in the local dialect so that
students were in grade VIII while 46.10% the participants could understand the task
(n=458) students were in grade IX and 10.60% properly before doing it. In some cases, the
(n=105) students were in grade X. Again, 21.80% solutions of problems were demonstrated
(n=217) students belonged to Non-Hindu pictorially with the help of blackboard and chalk.
community while 78.20% (n=777) students For each of similarities, anagram and coding
belonged to Hindu community. 47.80% (n=475) subtests, 12 minutes was provided and for each of
students reported to be belonging to general syllogistic reasoning and data sufficiency, time
caste, 44.20% (n=439) students belonged to non- provided was 24 minutes. Total time taken for the
general caste and rest of the students did not whole test battery was around 90 minutes.
indicate (8%; n=80). 36.50% (n=363) of the
Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics and
students were studying in English medium while
correlational analysis have been done to explore
52.60% (n=523) were studying in Bengali
the performances of the students in the subtests.
medium and 10.90% (n=108) were studying in
Further Principal component analysis has been
Urdu medium.
done to explore the latent relationship among the
Instrument
five abilities. With the components obtained,
The test battery (Datta & Dutta Roy, 2015) Analysis of Covariance has been done in order to
consisted of five subtests namely Similarities test whether individual factors like age, sex and
(assessed the ability to group a set of objects on grade has any influence on the development of
the basis of some similar properties or to the reasoning abilities.
identify an item that is dissimilar), Anagram
(assessed the ability to arrange jumbled up letters
in order to form a meaningful word), Syllogistic
Reasoning (assessed the ability to deduce
inference regarding the relationship between
objects or events, based on two or more
premises), Data Sufficiency (assessed the ability
to justify the answer to a question based on the
data provided in the answer) and Coding
(assessed the ability to code numerical and
alphabets on the basis of some assumed
relationship among them) in order to assess the
five abilities. Total number of items in the test
battery is 60, each of the five subtests containing
12 items. Each item has four or five alternatives
out of which only one is the correct alternative.
One score is given if the correct alternative is
chosen while in case of wrong answer no score is
given. Maximum score that can be obtained is 60.

Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics reveal that the mean
score of the students is 21.83 (Table 1) with the
highest average score being in Anagram
(Mean=7.88) and the lowest average being in
Syllogistic reasoning (Mean=1.36). It is also
noted that standard deviations of the subtest
scores are quite high. This indicates the
variability of performances of the students or
more precisely the wide range of their
capabilities. However, the mean scores in
Syllogistic reasoning (Mean=1.36) and Data
sufficiency (Mean=1.70) indicate that the
students' performance on these two subtests is
quite poor as compared to that in the other three
subtests.

0.87) and Syllogistic Reasoning (factor loading

= 0.86).

Correlational analysis
Correlational analysis shows that the intercorrelation coefficients among the subtests are all
significant at 0.01 levels (Table 1). It is noted that
the association among the subtests Similarities
and Anagram is high r (992) =0.60 while Coding
correlated moderately with both Similarities r
(992) =0.42 and Anagram r (992) =0.40 subtests.
On the other hand, the subtests Syllogistic
reasoning and Data Sufficiency are found to be
strongly associated among each other r (992)
=0.55. However, association of these two
subtests with the other three subtests are quite
low (r<0.30). Such a trend indicates that the
abilities which are being tapped by these five
subtests might be latently related to each other.
Hence Principal Component Analysis has been
done.

Figure1. Scree Plot showing the

components extracted along with
respective Eigen values.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and Inter-correlation
among the five subtests (n=994)
M

SD

1. Similarities

5.53

2.75

1.00

2. Anagram

7.88

3.82 0.60**

1.00

3. Syllogistic Reasoning 1.36

1.63 0.25** 0.21**

4. Data sufficiency

1.70

1.53 0.27** 0.15** 0.55**

5. Coding

5.36

3.91 0.42** 0.40** 0.27** 0.27**

6. Total

21.83 9.67 0.76** 0.77** 0.52** 0.50** 0.77** 1.00

**p<0.01 *p<0.05
Principal Component Analysis

1.00
1.00
1.00

Table 2

Rotated Component Matrix obtained through

Principal Component Analysis using Varimax
Principal Component Analysis using
rotation with Kaiser Normalization
varimax rotation extracted two components,
component 1 and component 2 with Eigen values
Components
2.35 and 1.15 respectively (Table 2).
1
2
Components with Eigen values less than 1 are
Anagram
.852
.018
discarded (Figure 1). The total variance
Similarities
.824
.161
explained by the two components is 70%. Further
Coding
.670
.269
the rotated component matrix (Table 2) explains
that Component 1 is comprised of the subtests
Data Sufficiency
.133
.872
Anagram (factor loading = 0.85), Similarities Syllogistic Reasoning
.160
.857
(factor loading = 0.82) and Coding (factor
Variance explained
38
32
loading = 0.67) while Component 2 is comprised
Eigen
Values
2.35
1.14
of the subtests Data Sufficiency (factor loading =

Principal Component Analysis of the five instruction as the independent variable (Table 3).
reasoning abilities extracted two components:
A significant difference among means of the
students' responses studying in three mediums
Component I (explaining 38%) consist of
was obtained with respect to lower-order
three subtests namely Anagram, Similarities and
reasoning ability F (2, 991) = 127.82, p<0.009
Coding measuring Planning Ability, Abstract
and higher order reasoning ability F (2, 991) =
Thinking and Symbolic & Non-Symbolic
48.76, p<0.009. It was noted that those studying
Representation. While component II (explaining
in English medium performed the best in lower32%) consist of two subtests namely Data
order reasoning problems (M=18.75; SD=5.02)
Sufficiency and Syllogistic Reasoning measuring
while in higher-order reasoning problems,
Competency Reasoning and Deductive
Bengali medium students scored the highest
Reasoning. As evident from the descriptive
(M=3.33; SD=2.87). Therefore in subsequent
statistics, the students performed much better in
analysis medium of instruction was taken as a
the subtests comprising the first component
covariate in order to partial out its effect.
while their performance in the subtests of the
second component is relatively poor. This might Table 3
be because the syllogistic reasoning and data
One-way Analysis of Variance for medium of
sufficiency subtests are tapping more difficult
instruction
abilities as compared to those tapped by the other
Reasoning ability Medium of Instruction
English
Bengali
Lower-order
Reasoning
Urdu
Total
English
Bengali
Higher-order
Reasoning
Urdu
Total

Mean
18.75
12.67
12.40
14.86
1.94
3.33
1.71

SD
5.02
6.44
5.12
6.52
1.46
2.87
1.28

2.65

2.41

**p<0.000
three subtests. So the first component tapping
similarity-based reasoning, synthesis and
symbolic representation is named the Lowerorder reasoning ability while the second
component tapping deductive reasoning and
knowledge sufficiency is named the Higherorder reasoning ability.
Analysis of Variance
As already described the students who
participated were from different mediums of
instruction as in Bengali, English and Urdu. But
the test administered was in English. So it was
hypothesized that those who studied in English
medium might have a natural advantage over
others studying in Bengali and Urdu mediums. To
test this hypothesis a One-way Analysis of
Variance was computed taking medium of

F-value
df
127.82** 2,991

p-value
0.000

48.76** 2,991

0.000

Analysis of Covariance of the reasoning

abilities with respect to sex revealed significant
mean differences both in case of lower-order
reasoning abilities F (1, 992) = 76.92,
p<0.009and higher-order reasoning abilities F
(1, 992) = 50.28, p<0.009; the greater mean being
in case of boys in both the cases. Similarly, with
respect to age, those aged above 13 years (older
adolescents) performed significantly better in
both lower-order reasoning abilities F (1, 992) =
16.41, p<0.02 and higher-order reasoning
abilities F (1, 992) = 20.12, p<0.009. However in
case of grade the students of grade IX performed
significantly better than those of grade VIII in
lower-order reasoning problems F (1, 992) =
2.80, p<0.009; while no significant difference
exists in the performance of the students of grade
VIII and IX in case of higher-order reasoning

abilities F (1, 992) = 2.55, p=0.11 (Table 4).

Table 4
Analysis of Covariance for lower-order and
higher-order reasoning abilities with respect to
demographic variables (n=994)
Further, for a 2 (Sex) 2 (Age) 2 (Grade)
analysis taking medium of instruction as
Reasoning Demographic
Components
Variables
Sex

covariate, a significant interaction between age

and sex was obtained in case of higher-order
reasoning ability F (1, 992) = 5.83, p<0.02 (Table
5). Mean differences for the interaction indicated
that for both the age groups, boys outperformed
girls with respect to the lower-order and higherorder reasoning abilities (Table 6). No other
interaction term has been found to be significant
(Table 5).

Levels

Mean

SD

F-value

p-value

Male

15.75

6.53

76.92**

0.00

Female

13.37

6.23
247.32**

0.00

Below13 years

13.62

6.02

16.41**

0.00

Above 13 years

15.78

6.72
182.24**

0.00

2.79**

0.01

184.62**

0.00

50.28**

0.00

4.29*

0.04

20.12**

0.00

13.86**

0.00

2.55

0.11

11.44**

0.00

Covariate
Age
Lower-order
reasoning
Covariate
Grade

VIII

14.06

6.16

IX

15.48

6.72

Covariate
Sex

Male

3.08

2.69

Female

1.92

1.63

Covariate
Higher-order
reasoning

Below years 13

2.30

2.29

Above years 13

2.91

2.47

Covariate
Grade
Covariate
**p<0.01

*p<0.05

VIII

2.55

2.48

IX

2.72

2.36

Table 5

than the higher-order reasoning problems which

requires the conception of syllogism and
Analysis of Covariance for 2 (Sex) 2 (Age) 2
competency reasoning to be solved. Thus it is
(Grade) interactions influencing lower-order and
more difficult and complex than the lower-order
higher-order reasoning abilities
Dependent Variable Interactions
Lower-order
Reasoning Ability

Higher-order
Reasoning Ability

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

F-value

p-value

Covariate

226.31**

0.00

Grade*Age

1.15

0.28

Grade*Sex

1.63

0.20

Age*Sex

0.71

0.40

Grade*Age*Sex

1.10

0.30

Covariate

7.584**

0.01

Grade*Age

2.41

0.12

Grade*Sex

0.2444

0.62

Age*Sex

5.83*

0.02

Grade*Age*Sex

0.18

0.68

reasoning problems. What the present findings

indicate is that age is a deciding factor in the
Table 6
development of reasoning abilities. As can be
Mean difference and standard error for age-sex seen in Table 4, the older adolescents
interaction in case of higher-order reasoning outperformed the younger ones significantly in
ability (n= 994).
both lower-order reasoning and higher-order
reasoning problems. This finding therefore,
Std. 95% Confidence
Age Sex Mean
directly renders support to earlier studies
Error
Interval
claiming the role of age in the development of
Lower Upper reasoning abilities (Berk, 2008; Kuhn, 2000;
Bound Bound
Goswami, 1996; Gentner & Rattermann, 1991).
Below Boys 2.88 0.18
2.54
3.24
Another important issue is the role of sex in
13
1.11
1.78
the development of reasoning abilities. Present
years Girls 1.45 0.17
findings indicate that boys performed
Above Boys 3.01 0.13
2.76
3.26
significantly better than girls in both lower-order
13
1.97
3.05
and higher-order reasoning problems. This
years Girls 2.51 0.27
finding also supports earlier studies claiming
better abilities among boys than girls (Yang,
Discussion
2004; Linn & Peterson, 1985). However, such a
Piaget (1952) in his theory of cognitive
finding can be explained from two different
development argued that cognitive development
perspectives. First, boys might have performed
takes place through subsequent stages, basic
better because of their better spatial abilities as
cognitive understanding developing at early
compared to girls (Hyde, Fennema & Lamon,
stage while more complex abilities like
1990; Linn & Peterson, 1985). Second, girls were
hypothetico-deductive reasoning developing at a
under-represented (37% as compared to 63%
much advanced stage. Present findings clearly
boys) in the study and therefore the present
echoed this hypothesis. The lower-order
finding may be a misrepresentation of the bigger
reasoning problems require lesser understanding
picture (Favreau & Everett, 1996). Thus it is

difficult to explain the plausible reason behind a required to address this problem. Second, girls
male outperformance as compared to females in are under-represented in the present study and
both the types of reasoning problems.
therefore the role of sex in the development of
reasoning abilities is not very clear. Future
Further, it is noted that in case of both
studies therefore, should consider this limitation
younger and older adolescent boys outperformed
before coming to any conclusion. Lastly, this
girls significantly in higher-order reasoning
study is just a nascent attempt to look into the role
problems, standard errors indicating a more
of these demographic factors like age, sex and
accurate measure of the population mean. This
grade in the development of reasoning abilities.
further supports the findings of earlier gender
Further studies are therefore, required to obtain
studies (Hyde, Fennema & Lamon, 1990; Linn &
an in-depth understanding of the same.
Peterson, 1985).
Implications
Again, grade, although has a role to play in
Previous researches reported that verbal
the development of lower-order reasoning
abilities, development of higher-order reasoning reasoning ability predicts performance in
is independent of schooling years. Kuhn (1993) language tasks (Dermitzaki & Efklides, 2000). It
opined that the ability to reason scientifically is also predicts science achievement along with
influenced by schooling years. However, present mathematical reasoning ability (Gustin &
finding is at contrary to this hypothesis. In case of Corazza, 1994), medical school performance
lower-order reasoning problems, performance of (Winegarden, Glaser, Schwartz & Kelly, 2012)
ninth graders is significantly better than those of and general academic performance (Corengia,
eight graders. It can be therefore said that Pita, Mesurado & Centeno, 2013). Findings of
academic curriculum has a role to play in the the study are therefore, important for developing
development of lower-order reasoning abilities teaching pedagogy and for devising training
but it does not impart any influence on the programs on verbal reasoning and aptitude. Poor
development of higher-order reasoning abilities. academic performance is often related to
The latter is more of an outcome of age and sex depression, anxiety, problem behaviors and
than schooling. This might have been because of delinquency (Nebbitt, Lombe, Lavelle-McKay
the present education system of West Bengal & Sinha, 2014; Frjd et al., 2008). Present
Government Schools. In such a system the Pass- findings suggest that grades have no role to play
Fail rule does not exist till eighth grade. Every in the development of higher-order reasoning
student has to be promoted in spite of poor abilities. This is particularly important to be
performance. Now this system has been considered while developing child counselling
implemented to prevent high drop-out rate. programs. Such programs should be therefore
However, in such a case, there is always a high aimed at the complete flourishment of the child in
chance that the students would pay little terms of knowledge acquisition and not just good
importance to the academic curriculum. grades.
Probably this explains the little role grades play
REFERENCES
in the development of reasoning abilities.
Adler, J. E., & Rips, L. J. (Eds.). (2008).
However, it is important to remember that
Reasoning: Studies of human inference and
like all other research works this study is also not
its foundations. Cambridge University
free of limitations. Thus before generalizing the
Press.
results it is important to take into consideration
these limitations. First, as revealed in the results Berk, L. E. (2008). Child Development. 7th
Edition; Pearson Education.
medium of instruction has a significant effect on
the performance of the students. Thus the test Bermejo, V. (1996). Cardinality development and
being in English language posed a difficulty for
counting. Developmental Psychology, 32:
the students studying in other medium of
263-268.
instructions. Future studies therefore, are

Colom, R., Rebollo, I., Palacios, A., JuanAdvances in Child Development and
Espinosa, M., & Kllonen, P. C. (2004).
Behavior. (Vol. 26, pp: 91-138). New York
Working memory is (almost) perfectly
Academic Press.
predicted by< i> g</i>. Intelligence, 32(3),
Gustin, W. C., & Corazza, L. (1994).
277-296.
Mathematical and verbal reasoning as
Corengia, A., Pita, M., Mesurado, B., & Centeno,
predictors of science achievement. Roeper
A. (2013). Predicting Academic
review, 16(3), 160-162.
Performance and Attrition in Undergraduate
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive
Students. Liberabit. Revista de Psicologa,
abilities (3rd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
19(1), 101-112.
Erlbaum Associates.
Darwin, C. (1922) The descent of man (2nd ed.).
Halpern, D. F., & LaMay, M. L. (2000). The
London: John Murra y. (Originall y
smarter sex: A critical review of sex
published, 1871; 2nd edition originally
differences in intelligence. Educational
published, 1874.)
Psychology Review, 12(2), 229-246.
Datta, S. & Dutta Roy, D. (2015). Towards the
Harris, C.K., & Pashler, H.E. (1995). Evolution
Construction of a Verbal Reasoning Test
and human emotions, Psycno-logical
Battery. Psybernews, 6 (1), 14-22.
Inquiry, 6: 44-46.
Dermitzaki, I., & Efklides, A. (1999). Aspects of
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990).
self-concept and their relationship to
Gender differences in mathematics
language performance and verbal reasoning
performance: a meta-analysis.
a b i l i t y. T h e A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f
Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 139.
Psychology, 113(4), 621-637.
Hyde, J.S. & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender
Ellis, H. (1894). Man and woman. London:
differences in verbal ability: A metaWalter Scott.
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104: 53Favreau, O. E., & Everett, J. C. (1996). A tale of
69.
two tails. American Psychologist, 51(3),
Hyde, J.S. & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender
268269.
differences in verbal ability: A metaFrjd, S.A., Nissinen, E.S., Pelkonen, M.U.I.,
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104: 53Marttunen, M.J., Koivisto, A., Kaltiala69.
Heino, R. (2008). Depression and school
Johnson-Laird, PN. & Byrne, RMJ. (1991).
performance in middle adolescent boys and
Deduction. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
girls. Journal of Adolescence, 31 (4): 485Kamphaus, RW. (2001). Clinical Assessment of
498.
child and adolescent intelligence (2nd Ed.)
Gelman, S.A. and Coley, J.D. (1990). The
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
importance of knowing a dodo is a bird:
Categories and inferences in 2-year-old Kobayashi, T., Kazuo, H., Ryoko, M. and
Hasegawa, T. (2004). Baby arithmetic: One
children. Developmental Psychology, 26:
object plus one tone. Cognition, 91: B23796-804.
B34.
Gentner, D., & Rattermann, M. J. (1991). 7.
Language and the career of similarity. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and
informal reasoning. Merill-Palmer
Perspectives on language and thought:
Quarterly, 39: 74-103.
Interrelations in development, 225.
Goswami, U. (1996). Analogical reasoning and Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive Development.
Current Directions in Psychological
cognitive development. In H. Reese (Ed.),

Science, 9: 178-181.

(1): 87-92.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Why development does (and Sarnecka, B.W. and Gelman, S.A. (2004). Six
does not) occur: Evidence from the domain
does not just mean a lot: Preschoolers see
of inductive reasoning. In R. Siegler and J.
number words as specific. Cognition, 92:
McClelland (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive
329-352.
development (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, NJ:
Spelke, E. (2000). Core Knowledge. American
Erlbaum.
Psychologist, 55: 1233-1242.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E. and O'Loughlin, M. (1988).
Starky, P. (1992). The early development of
The development of scientific thinking skills.
numerical reasoning. Cognition, 43: 93-126.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Staub, F.C. and Stern, E. (2002). The nature of
Kuhn, J. T., & Holling, H. (2009). Gender,
teachers' pedagogical content beliefs
r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y, a n d s c h o l a s t i c
matters for students' achievement gains:
achievement: A multilevel mediation
Quasi-experimental evidence from
analysis. Learnin g and Individua l
elementary mathematics. Journal of
Differences, 19 (2): 229-233.
Educational Psychology, 94: 344-355.
Linn, M.C. & Peterson, A.C. (1985). Emergence
Stumpf, H., & Jackson, D. N. (1994). Genderand characterization of sex differences in
related differences in cognitive abilities:
spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child
Evidence from a medical school admissions
Development, 56: 1479-1498.
testing program. Personality and Individual
Lipton, J. S. and Spelke, E.S. (2003). Origins of
Differences, 17 (3), 335-344.
number sense: Large number discrimination
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language
in human infants. Psychological Science, 14:
(A. Kozulin. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
396-401.
Press. (Original work published 1934).
Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence
Winegarden, B., Glaser, D., Schwartz, A., &
and brain size: A paradox resolved.
Kelly, C. (2012). MCAT Verbal Reasoning
Personality and individual differences,
score: less predictive of medical school
17(2), 257-271.
performance for English language learners.
Medical education, 46 (9), 878-886.
Moshman, D. (1999). Adolescent Psychological
Development: Rationality, morality and
Xu, F. and Spelke, E.S. (2000). Large number
identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
discrimination in 6-month old infants.
Nebbitt, V.E., Lombe, M., Lavelle-McKay, C. &
Cognition, 74: B1-B11.
Sinha, A. (2014). Correlates of academic
Yang, F. Y. (2004). Exploring high school
performance among school-age African
students' use of theory and evidence in an
American males in public housing. Children
everyday context: the role of scientific
and Youth Services Review, 44: 65-71.
thinkin g in environmenta l science
Pearson, K. (1897). Chances of death (Vol. 1).
decisionmaking. International Journal of
London: Arnold.
Science Education, 26 (11), 1345-1364.
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origin of Intelligence in
Zur, O. and Gelman, R. (2004). Yound children
children. New York: International
can add and subtract by predicting and
Universities Press.
checking. Early Childhood Research
Richland, L.E. and Burchinal, M.R. (2013). Early
Quarterly, 19: 121-137.
Executive Functions predict Reasoning
Development. Psychological Science, 24

TEST NUMBER: 3

Appendix

Given below are two statements followed by two

conclusions numbered (a) and (b). You have to
TEST NUMBER: 1
take two given statements to be true even if they
In each question, three out of four items are alike seem to be at variance from commonly known
in a certain way and so form a group. Which is the facts and then decide which of the given
conclusion logically follows from the two given
one that does not belong to the group?
statements disregarding commonly known facts.
Item:
STATEMENTS:
a) BD
b) CE
c) DF
d) FG
i) All pencils are bricks.
Correct Answer (a)
ii) All bricks are bottles.
Correct answer:
CONCLUSIONS:
In option (a), B and D are not in consecutive
position, there is C in between. Same follows in a) All pencils are bottles.
case of 'CE' and 'DF'. But in case of (d), F and G b) All bricks are pencils.
are consecutive alphabets and there is no gap
(A) If only conclusion (a) follows.
between them. Hence, (d) is the correct answer.
(B) IF only conclusion (b) follows.
TEST NUMBER: 2
Verbal Reasoning Test items

There are 12 items in this section. Each item is

followed by some letters of a meaningful word
which is not properly arranged. You are to
arrange the letters properly so that it will convey
the meaning of the word. There are five
alternative answers namely 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd' and 'e'.
Choose the correct alternative.

(D) IF neither (a) nor (b) follows.

(E) IF both (a) and (b) follows.
Correct Answer (a)
Explanation:

a)

v, i, iii, iv, ii

b)

ii, v, iii, i, iv

c)

i, iii, iv, v, ii

d)

iii, i, ii, iv, v

The 'pencil' circle is in the 'brick' circle and both

the 'pencil' and 'brick' circle are in the 'bottle'
circle. Thus we can say that all pencils are bottles
since the whole 'pencil' circle is within the 'bottle'
circle. But we cannot say that all bricks are
pencils as because the 'pencil' circle is covering
only a small area of 'brick' circle, but a greater
portion of the 'brick' circle is outside the 'pencil'
circle which means that all bricks are not pencils.
Hence we accept the conclusion (a) that is 'All
pencils are bottles' and therefore correct answer
is (A).

e)

i, v, iv, ii, iii

TEST NUMBER: 4

Item:
i) T

ii) N

iii) R

Answers:

iv) A

v) I

Correct Answer: (c)

Each of the items below consists of a question

and statements numbered (a) and (b). You have to
decide whether the provided in the statements are
Here the jumbled up letters form the word
sufficient to answer the question. Read both the
TRAIN, which follows the order (i)-(iii)-(iv)statements and give answer as follows:
(v)-(ii). This order is given in option (c).
Item
Therefore the correct answer is option (c).
Correct Answer:

Question:

How many students in a school eat in the canteen?

Answers:
a) Half the girls in the school eat in the canteen.
b) One-third of the boys in the school eat in the canteen.
Options
(A)

If statement 'a' alone is sufficient but statement 'b' is not sufficient.

(B)

If statement 'b' alone is sufficient but statement 'a' is not sufficient.

(C)

If both the given statements are not sufficient.

(D) If statements 'a' and 'b' together are necessary.

Correct Answer
Here both the statements are not sufficient to answer the question.
Hence the correct answer is (c) .
TEST NUMBER: 5
This test includes 12 items followed by combination of digits (i, ii, iii and iv) and letters (A, B, C, and D). You
are to find out the right combinations from the alternatives namely a, b, c, and d, considering the similarity between the
combinations of letters and digits respectively.
1=C

4=E

6=K

9 =A

I) 46

ii) 19

iii) 61

iv) 94

A) AE

B)EC

C)AK

D)CA

Answer:
a)

iB & iiC

b)

iiD & ivA

c)

iiiC & ivB

d)

iiD & iiiA

Correct Answer: (b)

Explanation: Here at first all the numbers are coded for alphabets. So 46 stands for EK, 19 stands for CA, 61
stands for KC and 94 stands for AE. Now, among the given combinations of alphabets, it is seen that EK and KC are
absent. But AE and CA are present, given in option (A) and (D). So the correct combinations of numbers and alphabets
are iiD and ivA. This combination is given in the answer (b) and so the correct answer is (b) iiD & ivA.