Evaluate Argument Logic - GRE Verbal

Confusing correlation with causation. This flaw occurs when a mere statistical association is erroneously interpreted as direct evidence of one variable causing another.

A different factor that could produce the observed effect. Alternative causes undermine causal claims by proposing other plausible explanations for the effect, independent of the argued factor.

A third factor linked to both cause and effect, distorting inference. Confounding variables introduce bias by correlating with both variables, potentially explaining the observed relationship without true causation.

Unrepresentative sample (hasty generalization). Generalizing from limited or skewed data fails to account for variability, leading to unreliable conclusions about the broader population.

Ad hominem reasoning. Ad hominem diverts attention from the argument's merits by targeting personal characteristics, undermining logical discourse.

The main claim the author aims to prove. In argument evaluation, the conclusion represents the primary assertion that premises are intended to substantiate through logical reasoning.

An unstated claim that must be true for the reasoning to work. Implicit assumptions bridge gaps in explicit reasoning, ensuring the premises logically entail the conclusion without being directly stated.

“What must be true for the conclusion to follow.”. This question targets the core unstated premise essential for the argument's validity, distinguishing it from mere supplementary information.

The conclusion is assumed in the premises. Circular reasoning renders an argument invalid by presupposing the truth of the conclusion within the supporting premises.

Division fallacy. Division incorrectly assumes that attributes of the whole inherently apply to its parts, disregarding contextual differences.

Composition fallacy. Composition erroneously attributes properties of individual parts to the entire whole, overlooking emergent characteristics of the collective.

Treating two options as exhaustive when more exist. False dilemmas oversimplify complex issues by presenting limited choices as the only possibilities, ignoring viable alternatives.

A key term shifts meaning between premises and conclusion. Equivocation exploits ambiguity in language, allowing a term's meaning to change subtly and invalidate the logical connection.

Necessary assumption. Necessary assumptions are critical linchpins; their negation directly undermines the argument's logical coherence and validity.

“Is the sample representative of the target population?”. Assessing representativeness verifies whether the sample accurately reflects the population, ensuring valid generalizations from survey data.

Ad hominem attack. Ad hominem weakens arguments by focusing on personal attacks rather than addressing the substantive issues or evidence presented.

Find conclusion, list premises, then test assumptions and gaps. This systematic approach ensures comprehensive analysis by identifying logical structure and potential weaknesses in reasoning.

Data showing a third factor changes with both the alleged cause and effect. Identifying a confounder provides a rival hypothesis, suggesting the apparent causation may stem from an overlooked correlated factor.

A controlled comparison showing $B$ changes only when $A$ changes. Controlled experiments isolate the causal variable, demonstrating its unique impact and eliminating confounding influences.

Slippery slope (unsupported chain of consequences). Slippery slope predicts extreme outcomes from initial actions without evidence, exaggerating potential consequences to oppose change.

Correlation treated as proof of causation. This error assumes that an observed association definitively establishes a causal link, neglecting the need for further validation.

Hasty generalization from anecdote. Hasty generalization extrapolates from insufficient evidence, such as a single case, to broad claims without adequate justification.

Post hoc causation (timing alone used to infer cause). Post hoc fallacy infers causation solely from temporal sequence, ignoring other potential factors influencing the outcome.