You might have heard; I registered to take it. That is, however beside the point of this blog. Logical reasoning, apparently a major part of the test, and such the preface to me practise materials outlines examples of both good and bad logical reasoning. Some are frankly, quite ammusing. So it starts like this;

Major Premise: Usually a general claim or principle
Minor Premise: Usually a claim about a particular instance or object.
Conclusion: The main claim that rests on the combination of the above claims.
Eg:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, socrates is mortal.

It then procedes to point out flaws in this technique, such as using unproven initial primeses, using to general conclusions, or having unrelated conclusions to the inital premises. As such the following exaples are used.

All Jedi Knights are immortan.
John Howard is a Jedi Knight.
Therefore John Howard is immortal.
[pointing out flawed initial premises]
All horses are animals.
Bob is a dog.
Therefore Bob is not an animal.
[highlighting ways in which the inital premises do not justify the conclusion, and who in the hell names there dog BOB?!]
Napoleon was French
All Frenchmen are Europeans
Therefore Hilter was Austrian.
Hmm... random examples much?