Verbal reasoning tests — especially the True/False/Cannot Say format — are the question type candidates struggle with most. The pass rate is lower than numerical reasoning, and the margin between answers feels painfully thin.
The format is used by SHL, Kenexa, and Cubiks across thousands of employers including Deloitte, PwC, Barclays, and KPMG. If you're applying to any major employer, you'll likely face this test.
You're given a passage of text — typically 150-300 words — followed by a series of statements. For each statement, you must decide:
True — the passage directly supports this statement.
False — the passage directly contradicts this statement.
Cannot Say — the passage doesn't provide enough information to determine whether the statement is true or false.
In a standard SHL verbal reasoning test, you'll face 30 statements across 17 minutes — roughly 34 seconds per statement. That includes reading the passage.
This is where most candidates lose marks. Here's the difference:
False means the passage says the OPPOSITE. There must be a specific sentence in the passage that contradicts the statement. If the passage says "Revenue increased by 12%" and the statement says "Revenue decreased," that's False — direct contradiction.
Cannot Say means the passage simply doesn't address the topic, or doesn't provide enough detail to decide. If the passage discusses revenue but the statement is about profit margins, that's Cannot Say — the passage doesn't mention profit margins at all.
The critical rule: if you can't point to a specific sentence that contradicts the statement, it's probably Cannot Say, not False.
This is the second most common mistake. The passage says "Company X expanded into European markets in 2023." The statement says "Company X operates in Germany." You think: Germany is in Europe, so this must be True.
Wrong. The passage says "European markets" — it doesn't specify Germany. Maybe they expanded into France and Spain only. The correct answer is Cannot Say, because the passage doesn't explicitly mention Germany.
Your general knowledge is irrelevant. Only the passage matters. If the passage doesn't say it, you cannot conclude it.
The passage says "Sales grew significantly in Q3." The statement says "Q3 had the highest sales of any quarter." The passage supports that sales grew, but "highest of any quarter" is a stronger claim than "grew significantly." Without data comparing all quarters, you can't confirm the statement. Answer: Cannot Say.
Watch for absolute words in statements: always, never, all, only, must, every, none. These make the statement stronger than what most passages support. Unless the passage uses equally strong language, the answer is usually Cannot Say.
Step 1: Read the statement first, before reading the passage. Know what you're looking for.
Step 2: Scan the passage for the relevant sentence. Not the whole passage — find the specific sentence that relates to the statement's topic.
Step 3: If you find a relevant sentence, compare it directly to the statement. Does it support it (True)? Does it contradict it (False)?
Step 4: If you can't find any relevant sentence, the answer is Cannot Say.
Step 5: Ask yourself: "Am I using any knowledge that isn't in this passage?" If yes, reconsider your answer.
In a well-designed SHL verbal test, approximately one-third of answers are True, one-third are False, and one-third are Cannot Say. If you're rarely choosing Cannot Say, you're almost certainly getting questions wrong. Most candidates under-select Cannot Say because it feels like giving up — but it's often the correct, analytical answer.
The fastest way to absorb the True/False/Cannot Say discipline is to work through complete passages with each statement scored. Below are three passages mirroring the style and difficulty of SHL Verify, Saville Verbal, and Watson-Glaser tests.
Passage: "Norwood Industries announced in its 2024 annual report that it had reduced operational carbon emissions by 18% compared with the 2019 baseline. The reduction was achieved primarily through site-level energy efficiency programmes and a partial switch to grid electricity sourced from renewable contracts. The company has set a further target of 35% reduction by 2030. Critics have noted that the figures exclude Scope 3 emissions, which include the carbon footprint of suppliers and customers. Norwood acknowledged this exclusion in a footnote and said work on a Scope 3 framework would begin in 2025."
Statement A: "Norwood's reported emissions reduction would be smaller if Scope 3 were included." Answer: Cannot Say. The passage tells us Scope 3 is excluded, but says nothing about the direction Scope 3 emissions have moved between 2019 and 2024. They might have increased (making the true reduction smaller) or decreased (making it larger). Without that information we can't determine the effect. The most common wrong answer here is "True" — which assumes that including Scope 3 would worsen the picture. That's a real-world inference, not a passage inference.
Statement B: "Norwood's 2030 target represents a further reduction of roughly 17 percentage points from current levels." Answer: True. The current reduction is 18%; the 2030 target is 35%. The additional reduction needed is 35% − 18% = 17 percentage points. The arithmetic is in the passage; the statement uses "roughly" which gives a small margin of interpretation.
Statement C: "Renewable contracts were the largest single source of Norwood's reported reduction." Answer: False. The passage says energy efficiency programmes were the primary driver, with renewable contracts as a partial supplement. The statement reverses that ordering — it directly contradicts the passage.
Passage: "The Financial Conduct Authority's revised guidance on consumer duty, which took effect in July 2023, requires firms to demonstrate that products deliver 'good outcomes' for retail customers. The rules apply to all FCA-regulated firms operating in the UK, including those headquartered overseas with UK-facing products. Compliance is monitored through a combination of firm-level reporting and the FCA's own outcomes testing. Firms found in breach can face fines, restitution requirements, or licence restrictions, with penalties calibrated to harm caused rather than the firm's revenue."
Statement A: "Overseas firms without a UK office are exempt from the consumer duty rules." Answer: False. The passage says the rules apply to overseas-headquartered firms operating UK-facing products. Having no UK office is not the criterion; offering UK-facing products is.
Statement B: "An FCA penalty for breaching the consumer duty would be calculated based on the firm's annual revenue." Answer: False. The passage explicitly states penalties are calibrated to harm caused, not to firm revenue. The statement asserts the opposite.
Statement C: "The FCA monitors compliance solely through firm self-reporting." Answer: False. The passage describes "a combination of firm-level reporting and the FCA's own outcomes testing." The word "solely" makes the statement strictly false. Watch for absolute words — "always", "never", "only", "solely" — they often flip a Cannot Say into a False because the absolute is contradicted.
Passage: "A 2024 study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development surveyed 2,400 UK employers across financial services, retail, manufacturing, and the public sector. Two-thirds reported difficulty filling roles requiring advanced data literacy, with the gap most acute in financial services. The CIPD recommended that employers expand entry-level data-training programmes rather than competing for the existing pool of mid-career analysts. Several large retailers have since launched apprenticeship schemes targeting school leavers with no prior data background."
Statement A: "Two-thirds of UK financial services employers reported difficulty filling data roles." Answer: Cannot Say. The passage says two-thirds of all surveyed employers reported difficulty, and that the gap is most acute in financial services. We don't know what the financial-services-specific figure is — it might be higher than two-thirds, it might be lower if "most acute" means severity of the gap rather than prevalence. Reading carefully matters.
Statement B: "The CIPD believes that competing for mid-career analysts is a worse strategy than training entry-level staff." Answer: True. "Rather than" in the passage explicitly recommends one strategy over the other. The statement faithfully restates the recommendation.
Statement C: "All apprenticeship schemes launched after the CIPD report target school leavers." Answer: Cannot Say. The passage describes apprenticeship schemes launched by "several large retailers" targeting school leavers — but doesn't say all post-report schemes do this. There may be other apprenticeship schemes launched by firms in other sectors that target other groups (career switchers, graduates, etc.). The absolute "all" can't be supported.
Most published verbal-reasoning guides describe Cannot Say as "you can't tell from the passage." That's technically right but operationally misleading. It causes candidates to mark Cannot Say whenever the question feels uncertain — which is the opposite of what scoring algorithms reward.
The correct mental model is: Cannot Say means the passage doesn't address this point at all. The two common cases are:
If the passage directly states the claim, mark True. If the passage directly contradicts the claim, mark False. Cannot Say is only for the third case — and the third case is more common than candidates expect, which is why the one-third rule above is empirically accurate on calibrated tests.