Rank 16 by frequency | 19 questions in corpus (0.4% of all questions)
Give an Example is the rarest canonical LR type. It covers questions that ask you to illustrate, exemplify, or apply a principle, rule, or general claim to a specific situation. The stimulus provides a general claim or principle, and the answer choices provide specific cases — you identify the case that correctly exemplifies or applies it. The family also includes evaluation questions that ask what piece of information would be most useful in assessing the argument.
Give an Example is the only LR type organized around the general-to-specific bridge. In the most common format, the stimulus states a general principle, rule, or generalization — typically a broad, abstract statement about how things work, what should be done, or what is true in general. Principles are frequently expressed as conditional statements (if X, then Y) that function as premises. The answer choices then present specific situations, and your job is to identify the one that correctly exemplifies or applies the principle.
The reverse direction also shows up: the stimulus describes a specific situation, and the answer choices are five general principles. You must figure out what abstract rule the stimulus exemplifies and find it among the answers. A separate variant asks you to identify what additional question or piece of information would be most useful for evaluating an argument — still a general-to-specific bridging task, just applied to argument evaluation rather than principle application.
The defining feature is the bridge between the abstract and the concrete. In one direction, a general principle is applied to a specific case (deductive application). In the other, a specific case illustrates a general rule (inductive abstraction). Because principles frequently involve conditional logic, success depends on the same conditional-reasoning skills that power Principle (Conform): sufficient vs. necessary conditions, contrapositives, and multi-condition rules.
A correct answer is a valid instantiation of the principle — the specific case in the answer must match the general rule in the stimulus on both scope and direction. Miss on either dimension and the match fails.
Scope must match. The category the principle speaks about must include the specific case in the answer. A principle about "employees who have worked more than five years" does not govern a case about "employees in their first year." Equally, the general principle has to be neither too broad (covering cases the stimulus does not support) nor too narrow (excluding the stimulus case) — the abstraction level has to be right.
Direction must match. If the principle says "If A, then B," the correct answer must show A triggering B, or show not-B implying not-A (contrapositive) — never B implying A or not-A implying not-B. This is the single most frequently tested error in the type.
All conditions must be met. If the principle has multiple conditions ("if X and Y, then Z"), the answer must establish both X and Y, not just one. Missing a single condition breaks the match, no matter how well everything else lines up.
Give an Example appears in six variations. They are all organized around the same abstract-concrete bridge, but differ in which side sits in the stimulus and which side sits in the answers.
Variation 1 — Apply the Principle (stimulus = principle; answers = situations). The stimulus states a general rule; the answers each describe a specific situation; you find the situation that correctly applies the principle. Medium difficulty. Stems: "Which one of the following is an application of the principle above?", "Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?", "Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle stated above?"
Variation 2 — Identify Which Situation Conforms (parallel principle). The stimulus presents an argument that follows an underlying principle; you extract the general rule and find the answer that follows the same principle. Medium-high difficulty because you must extract the principle first. Stems: "Which of the following situations most conforms to the principle illustrated above?", "Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?", "Which of the following illustrates a principle most similar to that illustrated above?"
Variation 3 — Identify the Principle (stimulus = situation; answers = principles). Reverse direction: the stimulus describes a specific situation or argument, and the answers state general principles; you find which principle the situation best exemplifies. Medium-high difficulty. Stems: "Which one of the following propositions is best illustrated by the situation described above?", "Which one of the following generalizations does the situation most clearly illustrate?", "Which one of the following propositions does the passage most precisely illustrate?"
Variation 4 — Violation of Principle. The stimulus states a principle and the question asks which situation violates it. You find the answer where the principle's conditions are met but the conclusion contradicts the principle. High difficulty because it requires contrapositive thinking. Stem: "Which one of the following does not conform to the principle illustrated by the author?"
Variation 5 — Evaluation Question. The stimulus presents an argument or prediction; you identify what question or information would be most useful for assessing it. Medium-high difficulty. Stems: "Which one of the following would be most useful in evaluating the argument?", "The answer to which one of the following questions would be the most relevant in evaluating the accuracy of the prediction?"
Variation 6 — Best Illustration of a General Claim. The stimulus makes a general claim, and you find the best specific example. Medium difficulty. Stem: "Which one of the following best illustrates the principle that the passage illustrates?"
The method splits cleanly by direction. Apply the Principle and its kin use a deductive workflow; Identify the Principle uses an inductive one. Both rely on predicting before evaluating.
For Apply the Principle. Step 1: Read the stimulus and identify the principle. Break it down into conditional components (if/then). Note all conditions and consequences. Step 2: Identify the contrapositive of the principle — it is equally valid and may be tested. Step 3: For each answer choice, check whether all sufficient conditions of the principle are met, whether the conclusion matches the consequent, and whether the logical direction is correct. Step 4: Eliminate answers where conditions are missing, the conclusion is wrong, or the direction is reversed. Step 5: Select the answer that fully and correctly applies the principle.
For Identify the Principle. Step 1: Read the stimulus and identify the key pattern — what general rule does this specific situation demonstrate? Step 2: Abstract the pattern into general terms — what would this look like as a general rule? Step 3: For each answer choice, check whether the general statement accurately captures the stimulus pattern without overstating or understating it. Step 4: Eliminate answers that are too broad, too narrow, or that misstate the pattern. Step 5: Select the most accurate generalization.
For Apply the Principle variants, the correct answer presents a scenario where all sufficient conditions of the principle are satisfied, where the conclusion or judgment correctly follows the principle's consequent, and where the logical arrow flows in the correct direction (from facts to judgment). It may require recognizing the contrapositive of the principle — the correct answer is logically equivalent to a direct application but phrased differently.
For Identify the Principle variants, the correct answer states a general rule that accurately captures the specific pattern in the stimulus. It is neither too broad (would encompass cases the stimulus does not support) nor too narrow (would exclude the stimulus case) — the correct level of generality sits exactly at the pattern the stimulus displays.
Structurally, the correct answer is a specific instance of the general rule stated in the stimulus (or vice versa). The principle is the abstract pattern; the answer is the concrete realization. They are related as general-to-specific (deduction) or specific-to-general (induction).
Wrong answers on this type are almost always conditional-logic errors dressed in the topic of the principle.
Trap 1 — Missing condition. The scenario meets some conditions of the principle but not all. If the principle requires both X and Y, the trap answer only establishes X. Defense: check every named condition of the principle against the case in the answer.
Trap 2 — Reversed conditional (the most common flaw tested). The answer treats a necessary condition as sufficient. Principle: "If A, then B." Reversed trap: answer establishes B and concludes A. This is the single most frequently tested error in principle application questions.
Trap 3 — Too broad a principle. For Identify the Principle questions, an answer that captures the stimulus pattern but also encompasses cases the stimulus wouldn't support. Easy to miss because it "covers the facts."
Trap 4 — Too narrow a principle. The opposite problem: the principle excludes the stimulus case itself, even though it addresses the right subject matter. Defense: apply the principle back to the stimulus and verify it generates the stimulus outcome.
Trap 5 — Wrong subject matter. The answer is in the topic area of the principle but applies a different rule.
Two design patterns drive the most difficult Give an Example questions, and both have the same root cause: conditional logic under disguise.
Contrapositive required. The correct answer does not directly match the principle's if-then form but matches its contrapositive ("if not-then, then not-if"). Test-takers who only look for direct matches miss the correct answer because it looks unlike what they predicted. Defense: always work out the contrapositive before evaluating answers.
Multiple conditions. The principle has three or more conditions that must all be satisfied. Wrong answers satisfy only a subset, and because they satisfy some conditions they feel plausible. The most common stimulus structures are conditional principle plus matching scenario ("If conditions X and Y are met, then judgment Z follows" — the correct answer presents X and Y and concludes Z) and normative principle plus compliance case ("One should do A when B applies" — the correct answer shows someone doing A when B applies).
Give an Example overlaps heavily with other principle types. The distinctions are subtle but real.
vs. Principle (Strengthen). Strengthen-with-principle asks for a principle that would support an argument. Give an Example asks for a situation that applies a principle.
vs. Must Be True. Must Be True asks what can be inferred from the stimulus. Give an Example asks what illustrates or applies a rule.
vs. Match the Reasoning. Match the Reasoning asks for parallel logical structure. Give an Example asks for a principle-example relationship — content can differ entirely as long as the rule matches.
vs. Principle (Conform). Significant overlap between these types. Principle (Conform) typically provides a situation in the stimulus and asks for the principle; Give an Example more often provides the principle and asks for the situation. The underlying skill — matching abstract rule to concrete case — is the same.
Recognizing these stems tells you to switch into abstract-concrete bridging mode: identify the general rule (wherever it sits — stimulus or answer), predict its specific application or abstraction, then match.