Strengthen an Argument - GRE Verbal

Evidence of temporal precedence plus controls for confounders. These elements help establish a causal link by demonstrating timing and isolating variables, reducing the chance of spurious correlations.

Evidence the key conditions will persist and the trend is stable. This supports the reliability of extrapolating past patterns into the future, making the forecasted outcome more probable.

A relevant similarity in the feature that drives the conclusion. Highlighting pertinent parallels reinforces the validity of applying outcomes from one scenario to another, strengthening the analogical reasoning.

Evidence the sample is representative and the method is unbiased. Such evidence addresses potential biases or sampling errors, increasing confidence that the results generalize to the broader population.

Evidence ruling out plausible alternative causes. By eliminating other potential explanations, this evidence enhances the likelihood that the proposed cause is responsible for the observed effect.

An unstated link needed for the premises to support the conclusion. Strengthening often involves supporting these implicit assumptions, making the argument's logic more robust without introducing new premises.

Identify the conclusion and the key supporting premises. Understanding the core structure of the argument allows for targeted identification of evidence that bolsters the logical connection between premises and conclusion.

Choose evidence that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. This approach directly supports the argument by providing information that increases the probability of the conclusion following from the premises.

Costs and supply constraints will remain stable while demand continues rising. Stability in external factors ensures rising demand translates to profits, reinforcing the prediction's validity.

Evidence the plan addresses the main cause and is feasible at scale. By confirming the plan targets the root issue and can be implemented effectively, it bolsters the argument's claim of success.

Evidence the item clearly meets the defining criteria. This directly affirms the categorization by aligning the subject with established standards, reinforcing the argument's logical foundation.

Evidence the sample is typical or the effect is consistent across groups. Such evidence mitigates concerns about generalizability, supporting the extension of findings from the sample to the larger population.

Evidence the expert is qualified and unbiased in the relevant field. Validating the expert's credibility and neutrality enhances the reliability of their input, thereby fortifying the argument's evidential base.

Evidence the effect rarely occurs without that cause. This reduces the plausibility of alternative causes, making the inferred causal relationship more compelling.

A statement that is true but irrelevant to the conclusion. These options distract by offering information that does not impact the argument's logic or the conclusion's validity.

Other safety changes were not implemented during the same period. This rules out confounding factors, increasing the likelihood that the lights were the primary cause of the accident reduction.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial shows greater improvement than placebo. A controlled study isolates the drug's effect, providing stronger evidence of efficacy beyond mere observation.

Competitors did not cut prices or exit the market during that time. Eliminating alternative explanations for sales growth strengthens the causal link to the advertising campaign.

Respondents were randomly sampled from all residents, not self-selected. Random sampling minimizes selection bias, enhancing the poll's representativeness and the argument's reliability.

Extended hours at similar museums increased attendance enough to cover costs. Evidence from analogous cases supports the feasibility and benefits of the proposal, bolstering its potential success.

A and B share the specific trait that is known to produce outcome X. Identifying a key shared characteristic relevant to the outcome reinforces the analogy's applicability and the argument's conclusion.

Most downtown pollution comes from car traffic rather than other sources. Confirming the primary source of pollution ensures the ban targets the main contributor, making the predicted reduction more likely.

Bee declines began after P was introduced and are greatest where P is used most. Temporal and correlational patterns provide evidence of causation, strengthening the link between the pesticide and bee declines.

A comparable untrained group did not show similar productivity gains. A control group isolates the training's impact, ruling out other factors and supporting the causal claim.