Logical Coherence and Transition questions on the CLT are some of the most intellectually demanding and rewarding parts of the Grammar & Writing section. They require you to engage deeply with the relationships between ideas, determine the most fitting connection or progression, and evaluate how well sentences and paragraphs work together. Success with these types of questions not only boosts your score but also sharpens your critical reading skills. Strong critical thinking skills will benefit you far beyond high school and even college!
Unlike Word Choice questions, Logical Coherence and Transition questions are less about vocabulary and more about the logical flow of thought. This module provides strategies and examples to help you master these questions.
Approach Question
Should you leave the sentence below as it is or opt for one of the three alternatives listed in the answer choices?
You may get tired; however, you must keep climbing until you reach the shelter on the other side of this mountain.
A. NO CHANGE
B. otherwise
C. indeed
D. consequently
To choose the best transition word, we need to understand the logical relationship between the first and second parts of the sentence. What is the relationship between “get tired” and “keep climbing”? If you’ve ever been both tired and climbing at the same time, you’ll know that the two are opposed to each other: if you’re tired, you probably want to stop, not “keep climbing.”
This relationship raises the crucial issue of contrast. Contrast, or opposition, can be one of the easier relationships to identify in reading a passage; it’s helpful to look for it especially because usually at least one of the answer choices on these types of questions expresses contrast. Because there is contrast in this sentence, we can rule out “indeed” and “consequently”. “Otherwise” is a contrast word of a sort, but it expresses the particular meaning of “If ____ is not true …” We need a more straightforward contrast word to express the opposing relationship between becoming tired and the advice to keep climbing. “However” fits the bill perfectly; the answer is A (NO CHANGE).
General Strategy
Understand the Passage’s Argument or Narrative.
Logical Coherence questions test your understanding of how a passage develops its main idea. Before diving into the answer choices, read at least two sentences surrounding the underlined portion. Then, step back and ask yourself: What is the author trying to say here? A brief summary of the portion you’ve read can clarify the connections you need to evaluate.
Identify the Relationship Between Ideas.
Transitions and logical connections often reflect one of these relationships:
Contrast (e.g., however, but, on the other hand, nevertheless)
Cause and Effect (e.g., because, therefore, as a result)
Look for key clues in the context to determine which type of relationship fits best. Of the above transition words and phrases, contrast words are the most powerful indicators you’ll find. Words like “but” are the biggest little words in the English language!
Examine the Structure.
Does the sentence in question:
Continue an argument?
Provide an example?
Conclude a thought?
Introduce a contrast or pivot?
Knowing this will help narrow down your options.
Anticipate the Answer.
Similar to the strategy for Word Choice questions, a strong approach to Logical Coherence and Transition questions prioritizes anticipation. Rather than passively reading the answer choices to find which one fits, use your work in the context to predict the answer. What word or phrase would you use to make the logic cohere and any transitions become abundantly clear? Then, and only then, evaluate all the possible answers.
Read Your Answer Back into the Broader Context.
If you have any doubt, plug your answer into the 2-3 sentences surrounding it. How does the section sound? Does it flow well? Does it logically fit together? If it does not sound quite right, revisit the answer choices.
Try these questions now.
Should you leave the sentence below as it is or opt for one of the three alternatives listed in the answer choices?
The suffering and alienation among African-Americans did not end with the abolition of slavery; nonetheless, for many, the brutality of the segregated South was just as wrenching as their years enslaved.
A. NO CHANGE
B. consequently
C. indeed
D. moreover
(spoiler)
Transition questions often require you to address whether the two parts of a sentence exist in similarity to or in contrast with each other. In this case, the relationship is one of similarity: a profoundly difficult experience is described in both parts of the sentence. The absence of contrast leads us to eliminate “nonetheless”.
The remaining choices, however, all express some sort of agreement or accordance. “Consequently” implies that the first part of the sentence describes something that causes the scenario in the second half. But there is no hint in the sentence that the years spent under slavery caused the difficulties of the years after slavery. So “consequently” seems unlikely.
“Moreover”, meanwhile, is a synonym for “furthermore” or simply “also”. This is a good word to use when stating two similar facts or describing two similar situations. But there is more than that going on in this sentence: the first part anticipates the second part, and the second part expands upon the first. This is a good opportunity to use an intensifier like “indeed”–a word indicating that what follows is going to exemplify or amplify what came before. That’s what happens in this sentence; the second part shows us that not only did the suffering not go away after emancipation but that in fact it remained just as intense as before, at least for some people. This is why “indeed” is called an intensifier: it points to an idea that makes the idea preceding it even stronger. The answer is C.
Should you leave the sentence below as it is or opt for one of the three alternatives listed in the answer choices?
Charles Dickens steadfastly maintained that no one co-wrote his first novel The Pickwick Papers, for several sources have claimed that the work owes its origins to the illustrator Robert Seymour.
A. NO CHANGE
B. and
C. so
D. but
(spoiler)
Unlike the previous example, this sentence bears the marks of contrast all over it. Dickens claimed one thing; others suggested just the opposite. Our four choices are all conjunctions that join together two independent clauses; they could all work grammatically, but “for” is a synonym for “because”, which doesn’t make sense, and “so” suggests that the second part depends logically on the first part. Only one answer, “but”, expresses contrast. The answer is B.
Should you leave the sentence below as it is or opt for one of the three alternatives listed in the answer choices?
German theologian Karl Barth famously became disenchanted with the liberal theology of his upbringing; as a result, he embarked on a different path from his forebears.
A. NO CHANGE
B. however
C. nevertheless
D. previously
(spoiler)
Sometimes a single word provides the key to understanding a portion of a sentence; in this case, that word is “disenchanted”. Considering that something “enchanting” attracts or inspires those who encounter it, the word “disenchanted” must suggest something unattractive. Barth was moving away from the teachings of his upbringing. When we also consider the word “different” from the second part of the sentence, we see a relationship of similarity between the sentence’s two parts. So “however” and “nevertheless” can be eliminated.
What about “previously”? This word would require a specific time sequence, with one event coming clearly before another. But Barth’s embarking “on a different path” does not appear to have happened before his disenchantment; if anything, it happened afterwards. That leaves us with “as a result”; do we see a “result” in this relationship? Indeed we do: because of his disenchantment, he moved in a different direction. The answer is NO CHANGE.
Practice Passage
In this section, you’ll find an excerpt from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Notes on Logic, published in 1969. We have included five Logical Coherence and Transition questions to go with the passage.
Frege said, “Propositions are names”; Russell said, "Propositions correspond to complexes.” Both are false, [1] because especially false is the statement “propositions are names of complexes”. Facts cannot be named. The false assumption that propositions are names leads us to believe there must be “logical objects”, [2] for the meaning of logical propositions would have to be such things.
What corresponds in reality to a proposition depends upon whether it is true or false. [3] So we must be able to understand a proposition without knowing if it is true or false. What we know when we understand a proposition is this: we know what is the case if it is true and what is the case if it is false. But we do not necessarily know whether it is actually true or false.
Every proposition is essentially true-false. [4] However, a proposition has two poles (corresponding to the case of its truth and the case of its falsity). We call this the sense of a proposition. The meaning of a proposition is the fact which actually corresponds to it. The chief characteristic of my theory is: p has the same meaning as not-p (constituent = particular, component = particular or relation, etc.).
[5] Neither the sense nor the meaning of a proposition is a thing. These words are incomplete symbols. It is clear that we understand propositions without knowing whether they are true or false. But we can only know the meaning of a proposition when we know if it is true or false. What we understand is the sense of the proposition. To understand a proposition p, it is not enough to know that p implies “p is true”, but we must also know that ~p implies “p is false”.
because
A. NO CHANGE
B. since
C. and
D. nevertheless
(spoiler)
The answer is C. Given the importance this lesson places on relationships of contrast, let’s begin considering each transition question with a consideration of possible contrast. Is the author expressing contrast between the first and second parts of this sentence? On the contrary! He asserts that two statements about propositions are false and then discusses a statement that combines the two statements he considers false. That combination he calls “especially false.” This seems like agreement, with an added intensity implied by “especially”. So we can rule out “nevertheless”.
We should consider “because” and “since” next, as they have similar meanings and get more at the idea of agreement. But these are logical “cause-and-effect” words, and the relationship, while involving similarity, doesn’t seem to imply that the last statement logically causes the first two. Also, don’t forget an important strategy principle: if two answer choices are quite similar, you can probably eliminate them both, because a CLT question can’t have two right answers! “Because” and “since” are indeed quite similar; let’s confidently eliminate them both.
This leaves “and”, a simple connector of agreement, which makes sense here. It is logical to say that the combination of two statements that are each individually false is itself false.
for
A. NO CHANGE
B. but
C. and
D. despite
(spoiler)
The answer is A. Beginning with an eye on contrast again, we have two possible answers: “but” and “despite”. We can eliminate “despite” right away because it doesn’t fit the sentence structure. We cannot put “despite” before a full subject and verb like “the meaning … would have to be …” Is there sufficient contrast suggested here to support the use of “but”? It doesn’t appear so; in fact, it looks like the second part of the sentence is introducing something that “would have to” be true in order to support the (false) assumption made in the first part. The two parts logically go together, with the second part supporting the first. That justifies a logically causal word like “for” in this context. “For” is better than “and”, which would simply connect two similar things; the logical relationship is too strong and specific for the connector to simply be “and”.
So
A. NO CHANGE
B. But
C. And
D. Therefore,
(spoiler)
The answer is B. This time, a relentless focus on possible contrast in meaning pays off. The first system tells us that the correspondence to reality of a proposition relies on knowing whether it is true or false. The second sentence, though, suggests that we must understand the proposition before knowing if it is true or false. If that seems like a paradox or contradiction to you, you have understood well! Wittgenstein is setting up a sort of impossible choice in order to chart a different path to reading and understanding propositions.
When we need contrast, “but” stands out among these answer choices. Notice the reward that sometimes comes from focusing on opposition in meaning: if you find it, there should be only one answer that can express that opposition. We don’t have to seriously consider the other answer choices here.
However
A. NO CHANGE
B. Moreover
C. Notwithstanding
D. Thus
(spoiler)
The answer is D. Since we have “however” and “notwithstanding” (two contrast words, but probably not similar enough in meaning to eliminate them both right away), we can once again look first for contrast. The first sentence talks about propositions being “true-false” and the second sentence appears to continue the thought with two poles, one for truth and one for falsity. That doesn’t sound like contrast, so let’s see if there are better options. “Moreover” is often a good answer, since it is a fairly general word that simply means “also”. But we also have the option “thus”, which suggests logical cause-and-effect. It’s a close choice, but if the test offers you “thus” and there appears to be a sense in which the first part leads logically to the second part, that logical connector is likely your best choice. “Moreover” could connect two similar things, but here the author seems to be posing the second idea as a logical consequence of what comes before it. The more specific “thus” is better in this case.
Which of the following would best fit with the paragraph as a whole?
Neither the sense nor the meaning of a proposition is a thing.
A. NO CHANGE
B. A proposition is complete once we know if it is true or false.
C. Sense and meaning are fully developed once a proposition is formed.
D. To say that “p is true” and “~p is false” begins the formation of a proposition.
(spoiler)
The answer is A. Here we have a logical coherence question that is less about transition than about its fit in the context of the entire paragraph to follow. We should pay special attention to the sentence immediately following this one: “These words are incomplete symbols.” When a sentence starts with “these”, there had better be an antecedent noun to go with that pronoun, or else the logic will be disjointed at best. This means we can focus our attention on the two choices mentioning “sense” and “meaning”; those are the best candidates for what the phrase “these words” refers to.
We also need to notice, however, the negative cast of the second (following) sentence. Calling the words “incomplete symbols” suggests they are insufficient; they don’t accomplish everything that’s necessary. So the choice that calls them “fully developed” would not appear to make much sense. Much better to start the paragraph with, “Neither the sense nor the meaning of a proposition is a thing.” That may sound a little informal, but the author’s writing has been fairly straightforward throughout the passage, and in any case, none of the answer choices seems to fit with what follows.
