Is there a technique for answering worded questions?

Yes. See below Main conclusion: This will be a simple and definite setence, commonly at the end of the argument but not always. If the question asks you to draw the conclusion, not find it, you must ask yourself what each argument in the passsage is trying to achieve - there will be a common goal. Assumptions: These are implicit truths (i.e. not actually written, taken to be obvious given what is already being said) that must be true for the arguments to be relevant and back up the main conclusion. Additional evidence: A question might ask Out of the options below, what would most weaken the argment? and in order to answer this you need to be certain about what the passage is trying to achieve - i.e. what is the main conclusion. It might also be useful to have the assumptions in the back of your head, beacause one of the options but be a contradiction to those assumptions which means the argument falls apart. Flaws: Finding an error or flaw in an argument also requires an understanding of the main conclusion. Once you know what the conclusion is, work backwards to each reason through the assumptions and find the flaw, which should be given as an option. Matching arguments: Here you must ignore the topic of the argument and focus on the structure. E.g.: If A is true and B is true, then C must be true. You must find the same structure in one of the given scenarios in the options. Principles: A general recommendation that although is specifiaclly applied to the case given, should also apply to other cases. Essentially you need to figure out what the passage is trying to fundamentally say without focusing on the context.