What this deck covers
This deck focuses on Evaluate Argument Logic, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for GRE Verbal.
Study Evaluate Argument Logic in GRE Verbal with focused flashcards that help you recognize the idea, recall the key rule, and apply it in practice-style prompts.
0% Complete
Identify the assumption type: "If this assumption is false, the argument collapses."
Tap card or press Space to flip
Necessary assumption. Necessary assumptions are critical linchpins; their negation directly undermines the argument's logical coherence and validity.
How well did you know it?
Card 1 / 24
Space to flip · ← / → to move · once flipped, → Got it · ← Still learning
This deck focuses on Evaluate Argument Logic, giving you a quick way to review the definitions, rules, and examples that matter most for GRE Verbal.
Work through these flashcards in short sessions. Try to answer each prompt before flipping the card, then revisit any cards you miss until the explanation feels automatic.
Answer: Necessary assumption. Necessary assumptions are critical linchpins; their negation directly undermines the argument's logical coherence and validity.
Answer: Necessary: required; sufficient: guarantees the conclusion. Necessary assumptions are indispensable for the argument to hold, while sufficient ones alone ensure the conclusion follows without additional support.
Answer: Slippery slope (unsupported chain of consequences). Slippery slope predicts extreme outcomes from initial actions without evidence, exaggerating potential consequences to oppose change.
Answer: 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.
Answer: Confusing correlation with causation. This flaw occurs when a mere statistical association is erroneously interpreted as direct evidence of one variable causing another.
Answer: A controlled comparison showing B changes only when A changes. Controlled experiments isolate the causal variable, demonstrating its unique impact and eliminating confounding influences.
Answer: Unrepresentative sample (hasty generalization). Generalizing from limited or skewed data fails to account for variability, leading to unreliable conclusions about the broader population.
Answer: 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.
Answer: Division fallacy. Division incorrectly assumes that attributes of the whole inherently apply to its parts, disregarding contextual differences.
Answer: Treating two options as exhaustive when more exist. False dilemmas oversimplify complex issues by presenting limited choices as the only possibilities, ignoring viable alternatives.
Answer: Correlation treated as proof of causation. This error assumes that an observed association definitively establishes a causal link, neglecting the need for further validation.
Answer: The conclusion is assumed in the premises. Circular reasoning renders an argument invalid by presupposing the truth of the conclusion within the supporting premises.
Answer: 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.
Answer: Hasty generalization from anecdote. Hasty generalization extrapolates from insufficient evidence, such as a single case, to broad claims without adequate justification.
Answer: "Is the sample representative of the target population?". Assessing representativeness verifies whether the sample accurately reflects the population, ensuring valid generalizations from survey data.
Answer: 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.
Answer: Ad hominem attack. Ad hominem weakens arguments by focusing on personal attacks rather than addressing the substantive issues or evidence presented.
Answer: Composition fallacy. Composition erroneously attributes properties of individual parts to the entire whole, overlooking emergent characteristics of the collective.
Answer: 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.
Answer: 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.
Answer: 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.
Answer: "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.
Answer: Ad hominem reasoning. Ad hominem diverts attention from the argument's merits by targeting personal characteristics, undermining logical discourse.
Answer: Find conclusion, list premises, then test assumptions and gaps. This systematic approach ensures comprehensive analysis by identifying logical structure and potential weaknesses in reasoning.