B-Schooled Podcast Episode #301: Admissions Test Indicator Words

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length. Timestamps refer to the audio.

Stacy: Welcome to B-Schooled, a podcast by Stacy Blackman Consulting, bringing you insight into all aspects of the MBA. I’m Stacy Blackman, the founder of SBC, and today I’ll be your host. Hello and welcome back to the B-Schooled podcast. Today I’m sitting down with Anthony Ritz, our amazing director of test prep here at SBC, and he’s going to talk about indicator words. Take it away, Anthony.

Anthony: Thank you so much, Stacy, and yes, I am. Indicator words, as some of you out in test prep land may know, are incredibly valuable tools for anyone trying to achieve a high verbal score on either the GMAT or the GRE. So I thought it’d be great to do a podcast and explain what they are and how to use them.

Stacy: Okay, so what are indicator words? I don’t even know, so this is going to be an educational journey for me.

Anthony: I’m excited. Indicator words are words in the English language whose sole purpose is to let you know what part of an argument you’re looking at. Recognizing them helps you break down and understand arguments. There are a lot of questions on the GRE, and especially on the GMAT, whether critical reasoning or reading comprehension, that involve analyzing arguments, so there are a lot of places where it’s helpful to have these tools.

Stacy: Okay, can you give me an example?

Anthony: Absolutely. There are indicator words for all sorts of things. Some of the most important indicate conclusions. If you see a word like therefore, thus, so, or conclusion, you definitely want to perk up and pay attention. On the other hand, you have premise indicator words like because, since, and for. There are also indicator words for other things, like counter-arguments.

But or however is a good example, where you’re about to switch sides in the argument. There are even words for when you’re about to switch sides, but not quite yet, like although or notwithstanding. When you say although, you’re about to make a point, but right after you’re done you go back to the other side: although this is true, actually… And of course there are indicator words for simply doing more of whatever you were doing before, like also and furthermore.

Whether you knew the term indicator words or not, most students are generally familiar with words like these and could probably guess what a lot of them do. But a lot of students haven’t learned to look for them, and don’t recognize their importance or really focus on them as they work critical reasoning questions. So one of the things we’re going to do is put some of the most common indicator words in the notes for this podcast, along with some tips on their usage. I hope that’ll be a handy tool for all of you watching or listening at home.

Stacy: [03:15] Okay, so what types of tips are we talking about? And can we dig into them in this conversation?

Anthony: That would be great. I’ll throw out a few of my favorites. Maybe my favorite of all is the curious case of the word however, and a few others like it. English is a funny language. We normally read from left to right, but not always. However is a counter-argument word. It indicates, theoretically, an immediate shift from one side of the argument to the other. But in English, it turns out we always treat however as though it were the first word of its sentence.

So when we say “I disagree, however,” or “I, however, disagree,” or “however, I disagree,” it’s all the same thing. The emphasis may shift, and we may focus on different things, but in every one of those cases the however acts like it’s the first word. The side switch between whatever I was saying on the other side of the argument and my current disagreement happens right at the beginning of that sentence, even though the however may not come until later. That’s a really important tip. It’s tested a lot, so it’s a good one to know.

Moving on to my next tip. There’s a small category of what I call fake indicator words. Some words a lot of people assume are indicators just aren’t. For instance, a claim can be a premise, a conclusion, or something else entirely. It all depends on how the claim is used, so you don’t want to rely on the word claim to tell you what part of an argument you’re looking at.

Also, when I was in law school, my legal research and writing professor absolutely hated the words clearly and obviously. She always said, if it’s actually clear or obvious, you don’t need to use those words. Just make your statement and everyone will nod in agreement. So those two words don’t really indicate anything at all. They don’t tell me whether I’m looking at a premise, a conclusion, or something else.

Stacy: Side note, that’s a very good essay-writing tip too. I was always told, if it’s clear or obvious, you don’t need to say it.

Anthony: Exactly. I was always told to cut those words out of my writing. You take them out and your writing is so much stronger immediately. So for those of you writing essays, my legal research and writing professor would 100% approve of that message.

[06:17] But another tip: sometimes you just won’t have indicator words. We’re here to talk about the cases where you do, and most arguments will. But if you have an argument, or a big chunk of one, with no indicator words whatsoever, it turns out the conclusion will tend to be the first statement, and the subsequent statements will tend to be supporting premises. That’s not a hard and fast rule, but treat it as a handy guideline. It can be very helpful in pointing you in the right direction.

I do have one final caveat before we move on. A lot of words in English have multiple uses and meanings, and indicator words are no exception. Something that’s an indicator word in one usage may not be in another, so think about how you’re using it and what it means. For instance, the word since can mean “from then until now,” or it can mean “because.”

Stacy: Oh, yeah. Okay.

Anthony: When I say “since,” as in “since last night,” that’s not an indicator word.

Stacy: Right.

Anthony: “Since last night, I slept eight hours.” Okay. But if I say, “since last night I slept eight hours, I’m very well rested this morning,” that’s now like saying “because last night,” and that would be a premise indicator word. So it’s either a preposition or an indicator, depending on how it’s used.

Another example is while. While can mean although, which is an indicator word, or it can mean “at the same time as,” which isn’t. And on and on. There are many more examples. Just think about how the words are used in context, and whether they’re trying to indicate something about an argument. Assuming you do that, you can rely on some of the lists I’m going to give you and use them to good benefit.

Stacy: Okay, that’s a lot of good info. Are indicator words the main tool you use to break down arguments? Are they the only tool?

Anthony: They’re certainly the one I’m talking about most today, and I think they’re great. They tend to be the first thing I notice when I’m breaking down an argument. But they’re not the only tool. They’re the 1A here. We have a couple of others I’ll mention briefly, and maybe on another podcast or in a lesson we can dig into them more. One is the why test, and another is a general guideline about facts versus opinions.

[09:06] So, first, the why test. By definition, a conclusion is a statement that’s supported by other statements. That’s what I mean when I say conclusion. So if you’re going through an argument looking for a conclusion and you find something you think might be it, but you’re not sure, ask yourself “why?” or “how do you know?” I call it the how-do-you-know test, but that isn’t as catchy, so we’ll go with the why test.

Here’s the thing: if the statement you think is the conclusion isn’t supported by any other statement, if nothing in the argument even attempts to support your alleged conclusion, then what you’re looking at isn’t actually a conclusion at all. On the flip side, even if your statement is supported and is some sort of conclusion, if it then turns around and supports something else further down the line, maybe what you’re looking at is a middle link in the chain. We’d call that an intermediate conclusion. It’s not the argument’s ultimate final conclusion if it’s turning around and supporting something else. So we’d say it’s a conclusion, but not the conclusion.

The other tool I wouldn’t lean on too hard. If indicator words are 1A, this is like 3C down the line. But it’s an 80-20 rule, which is to say that 80% of the time it works every time. The idea is that statements of fact tend to be premises, whereas statements of opinion tend to be conclusions. That’s usually true, and it’s a good guideline, but it’s not 100%, so never use it in a vacuum. There are a lot of exceptions.

There are scientific arguments where the conclusion is a factual statement: big argument, therefore we conclude that this beetle uses starlight to navigate, which is essentially a statement of fact. On the other hand, there are philosophical and theological arguments where the premises are ultimately opinion statements. We begin with the premise that God is good, or whatever. Even though it’s a premise, it’s still an opinion. So there are exceptions, but the general rule remains: more often than not, a plain, fairly inarguable fact is probably a premise, and a controversial or debatable statement, or one that says you should or ought to do something, is more likely a conclusion.

So breaking down an argument is a mix of these tools. It’s indicator words first and foremost, but also the why test, maybe a little fact versus opinion, and maybe even just reading the argument and thinking about its actual content, believe it or not. We start with the indicators, use these things to sharpen our intuitions, and use the why test to clean up lingering doubts.

Stacy: [12:37] Okay, helpful tips, but also abstract. I’m particularly out of practice on the GMAT. It’s been decades since I took it, and I got a 740, which wasn’t terrible at the time, but…

Anthony: Incredible. Fantastic score.

Stacy: Can you give me a specific example of a question where you’d use indicator words, and how we’d use them?

Anthony: I’d love to do a role question with you. That’s maybe not quite what you asked, but I think it’ll be a lot of fun. Role questions are a really important critical reasoning subtype. They show up on both the GMAT and the GRE, and for that matter on the LSAT too, for any LSAT people who’ve stumbled into this podcast.

I brought one in today, and I’d love to have you try it. This is going to be a little tricky, because it’s important to be able to see the question. If you’re listening rather than watching the video, it’ll be harder to follow along, so we’re going to do a couple of things. We’ll put it up on a screen share for those of you watching, and we’ll also put the full text of the question in the notes for those of you listening. I encourage you to look at the actual text when you can, especially on audio.

And once we put the question up, take a pause, take two minutes, and try it on your own before we discuss it, so you can see how you do and then compare notes with us. This is an official GMAT question, by the way, and it’s a hard one. It’s rated between 655 and 705 according to GMAT Club, which is a really good site that I use a lot. One more thing for everyone at home: Stacy, would you confirm I’m doing this question with you totally cold?

Stacy: Yes, and I’ll admit I’m nervous about making an idiot of myself. This question is cold, and I have not looked at a test question in a very, very long time. So, oh boy. Okay, let’s do it.

Anthony: All right, this is going to be exciting. It might be a spectacular train wreck, but everyone loves to watch a train wreck, right? The good news is you’re an incredibly intelligent woman, you’ve learned some of my tips about indicator words, and that’s about all you need. If you’re an intelligent person and you follow what I’m laying out, you can get really high-level questions right. So I believe you’re going to do great.

Stacy: Thank you for your confidence in me.

Anthony: [15:56] Okay, I’m going to screen share now and put a question on the screen. Let me find my PowerPoint. Are you able to see this question, Stacy?

Stacy: Oh, this is a long one. Yes, okay.

Anthony: For everyone at home who’s just listening, I’ve encouraged you to look at the text in the notes, but I’m going to read the question aloud. It’s a little awkward, but I’ll read it and let you know where the bolding is. Okay, the question starts. Historian.

Newton developed mathematical concepts and techniques that are fundamental to modern calculus. Leibniz developed closely analogous concepts and techniques. It has traditionally been thought that these discoveries were independent. Researchers have, however, recently discovered notes of Leibniz’s that discuss one of Newton’s books on mathematics.

Several scholars have argued that since the book includes a presentation of Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques, and since, begin boldface, the notes were written before Leibniz’s own development of calculus concepts and techniques, end boldface, it is virtually certain that the traditional view is false. A more cautious conclusion than this is called for, however. Begin boldface: Leibniz’s notes are limited to early sections of Newton’s book, sections that precede the ones in which Newton’s calculus concepts and techniques are presented. End boldface.

The question is: in the historian’s reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles? I’ll read the answers, and then we’ll discuss.

1. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends. The second is evidence that’s been used to support an opposing position.
2. The first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends. The second is that position.
3. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position that the historian defends. The second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion.
4. The first is evidence that’s been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes. The second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.
5. The first is evidence that’s been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes. The second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

Stacy: This is hard!

Anthony: [18:54] That’s okay. I’m going to take this in very small steps. Here’s what I’d like to do first. I don’t want your answer, and I don’t want your reasoning on the whole argument. All I want to know is: do you see in this argument any indicator words, anything we discussed or that would be on that list? Because I believe you have the list too.

Stacy: Yes. The word since is used in kind of a “because” situation.

Anthony: Did you mean this since, or this since?

Stacy: Oh, I meant the second one.

Anthony: I’d accept either. They’re actually both “because.”

Stacy: Okay. And then also…

Anthony: The word and is connecting them together, saying I have two of these.

Stacy: And then we also have the word however. I see there are two, but I was looking more at…

Anthony: Two howevers again. You’re absolutely right. Is there anything else you’d like to point out?

Stacy: No.

Anthony: Okay, that’s great. You did a really good job. Those are the most important ones. The only other words on my list I’d throw in as a small bonus: you hit the big ones, but there’s the word false. Anytime they directly tell you whether something is true or false, right or wrong, yes or no, it’s important to pay attention to. And I’ll throw out the word conclusion. If we’re looking for premises and conclusions and they say conclusion, it’s probably worth noticing.

Stacy: Right.

Anthony: So here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to the next page and highlight all of those words. And then I’m going to do something really fun. I think this is too easy for you, Stacy, so I’ve taken the answers away, but I’m not done taking things away. I’m going to take away everything else, or almost everything.

Stacy: Oh, wow.

Anthony: I had all these words, and what I want to prove to you is that exactly two of them matter. Exactly two. And they’re the two indicator words that in this case sit directly beside our bolded portions. I’ve left the bolding so you can see where it is, but obviously not what it says.

Stacy: For people listening, I’m looking now at the passage, and it’s gone. There’s just the word since and the word however.

Anthony: [21:33] And some bolding, that’s it. Since, bolding, another statement, period, another statement, comma, however, period, some more bolding. That’s all we see. So based on what you can see here, believe it or not, there’s only one possible place in this argument, bolded or not, where you could have the conclusion. This is a little tricky, but I’m wondering if you can figure out where the conclusion would have to be.

Stacy: Well, it seems like it would be before the word since, because you’d say, here’s the conclusion, since blah, blah, blah.

Anthony: It’s possible. Another structure we use a lot is “since premise, comma, conclusion.”

Stacy: So it could be “since this, here’s the conclusion.”

Anthony: Maybe the conclusion is here. There’s certainly some kind of conclusion.

Stacy: Yeah.

Anthony: But then I have to ask you: isn’t the however a side switch? Doesn’t that mean I’m switching sides? Do you think I’d give my big rah-rah conclusion and then immediately switch sides, say however, and tell you why I’m wrong? What do you think?

Stacy: No.

Anthony: I get that that’s a little leading, but probably I wouldn’t. Now, one other thing. Remember I said the however always exists at the beginning of a sentence? Where is the however always going to be, even if it doesn’t look like it’s there?

Stacy: Oh, the beginning.

Anthony: It’s always treated like it’s the beginning. This however you see isn’t where it looks like it is. It’s at the start of that sentence. So here’s the thing: I would not have stated “here’s my conclusion,” and then had the next word be however. That’s not believable. So the conclusion has to come after the however. If you had one more guess, where would that leave us looking for the conclusion?

Stacy: The very end, the part that’s bolded.

Anthony: Maybe the bolded statement. Or maybe the other statement, the one that contains the however. There are no further indicator words there, so my guess is it’s here. When you don’t have any indicator words after the however, you have a whole argument on that side, and generally in that case the conclusion is at the beginning. So if you put a gun to my head and said, you’ve got two words on the page, find the conclusion, that’s where I’m putting it.

[24:14] Now, if that’s the conclusion, as I suspect, then would the second bolded statement be on the same side as the conclusion or the opposite side? However, conclusion, another statement. If we switch sides, we switch at the however, which is the first word of the sentence, and that’s the only time we switch. So on one side I say however, and on the other side I stay there. I don’t switch again.

Stacy: So it’s the conclusion on the other side.

Anthony: It’s the same side as the conclusion.

Stacy: Right.

Anthony: If the blue is the conclusion, then that second bolded portion is on the same side. It’s almost certainly a premise that supports the conclusion.

Stacy: Right, right, right. Okay.

Anthony: And is the first bolded portion on the same side as the conclusion, or the opposite side?

Stacy: Opposite.

Anthony: Right. We said that’s a premise, and we think it supports another conclusion over here. But we don’t think that conclusion is on our side. We think it’s against us. So I know this was challenging, and you’ve done a great job. What we’ve gotten to is that the first bolded portion should be a premise that’s against us, and the second bolded portion should be a premise that’s for us. And I think we can say that confidently with only two words showing. Do you agree?

Stacy: Yes.

Anthony: Okay.

Stacy: Of course I agree with my teacher.

Anthony: Well, all right. But you’re also a very good student. I will say, when I do these lessons with people, sometimes I say something wrong on purpose to see if you agree, because I want you to think for yourself and not just nod and smile. But in this case, that is the right answer.

Anthony: [26:11] So let’s take a look at the answer choices. This is a whole challenge unto itself. The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles? A says the first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends. Do you think that’s an accurate description of the first bolded portion?

Stacy: No, because right afterward he says however, so…

Anthony: Yeah, we’re not defending that position. That might be evidence, and it might support something, but what it’s supporting is not what I’m defending. Absolutely not. So that answer is, in fact, very wrong. It’s actually backwards, because the first is supporting a position we oppose, and the second is supposed to support what we defend, and A says both in the opposite way.

B starts, “the first provides evidence in support of the overall position that the historian defends.” Wait, I think I read this already. Déjà vu. Same problem, right? It’s exactly the same wording.

Stacy: And it says however, so it wouldn’t be the same position again.

Anthony: Right. We’d be on opposite sides, not the same side, because of the however. Okay, let’s go through C. The first provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to provide support for the overall position the historian defends. A lot of words here.

Stacy: Well, it is in support of an intermediate conclusion.

Anthony: Is it the one that supports what we defend?

Stacy: The overall position? No.

Anthony: No. Same problem again. C is saying this statement is supporting us, but we know that’s wrong. The however tells me I’m going the other way, so it has to be wrong. I don’t even need to read the rest of C, but I will: the second provides evidence against that intermediate conclusion. That could work. It is evidence against whatever the first bolded portion is doing, but I’m already dead, so it doesn’t matter. The first part of C is unacceptable.

[28:24] Okay, D. The first is evidence that’s been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes. Correct, absolutely. And incidentally, we already said where that conclusion the historian criticizes is. The second is evidence offered in support of the historian’s own position.

Stacy: Yes.

Anthony: Absolutely. That was a premise supporting our conclusion. So we know D should be correct. I know I accidentally turned the page for a minute, so hopefully I didn’t spoil it, but it is correct. Briefly, let’s look at E just to make sure we’re not missing anything. It starts the same: the first is evidence that’s been used to support a conclusion that the historian criticizes. We already said we like that. The second is further information that substantiates that evidence.

Stacy: No, because of however.

Anthony: Once again, it’s amazing what one word can do. If you just ask which of these answers say the two statements are on opposite sides, you can immediately eliminate B and E. And if you further say the first one is against my conclusion, you can eliminate A and C.

Stacy: Yeah, that’s so interesting.

Anthony: And we did this with two words. I know there were some small hiccups, but it’s the first time doing it, so that’s to be expected. You still did an amazing job. And there’s the right answer.

Stacy: [30:15] Very cool. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. I want to go do another one.

Anthony: Absolutely. Everyone out there, I hope this was exciting, and I hope it inspires you to think, wow, I wonder what else I can do with this tool, because I think it’s an amazing technique. Not every question can be solved quite that cleanly. There are other tools you may need to bring to bear, as I mentioned. But there are several I considered for this podcast where you literally just need to see two words and nothing else matters, and this is an example.

Stacy: This is one that would be great to watch as opposed to just listen to. And we’ll definitely supply a link to the document Anthony created, which is a resource for these words and this tool. For me, since I’m not actually taking the GMAT, it’s kind of just a puzzle, and it’s interesting to go back and look at it. But hopefully test takers can have some fun with it too.

Anthony: Yeah, I love these tests. I think they’re puzzles, and for test takers, if you can find the fun in them, you’ll probably enjoy studying a lot more, you’ll do more of it, and ultimately you’ll do much better on the test. So it’s great to find what’s really interesting about these and lean into that.

Stacy: Agreed. Thank you to our test prep genius, Anthony. Thank you for taking the time, for preparing all of that, and for the free giveaway we’re going to distribute. I hope everyone found it helpful.

Anthony: As always, it’s my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me, Stacy.