Home

Tutoring

Subjects

Live Classes

Study Coach

Essay Review

On-Demand Courses

Colleges

Games

Opening subject page...

Loading your content

  1. GRE Verbal
  2. Strengthen an Argument

GRE VERBAL • ARGUMENTS AND LOGICAL REASONING

Strengthen an Argument

Learn to identify the answer choice that most effectively supports a conclusion's logical foundation on the GRE.

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

The ability to evaluate and strengthen arguments has been a cornerstone of Western intellectual tradition since antiquity. The ancient Greeks recognized that persuasion required more than mere assertion—it demanded a structured chain of reasoning from evidence to conclusion. When the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) was first developed, its designers drew upon centuries of work in formal logic and informal reasoning to construct questions that assess a test-taker's capacity for critical analysis. Among the most frequently tested question types in the Verbal Reasoning section is the Strengthen the Argument question, which asks you to find the piece of information that would most bolster a given conclusion.

~350 BCE
Aristotle's Syllogistic Logic
Aristotle formalized deductive reasoning in the Organon, establishing the syllogism as the foundational structure of argument. His work introduced the idea that conclusions depend on the strength and validity of their premises.
1958
Toulmin's Model of Argumentation
Stephen Toulmin published The Uses of Argument, proposing a model that included claims, grounds, warrants, and backing—a framework that directly informs how standardized tests assess argument strength.
1949
Creation of the GRE
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) launched the GRE as a standardized graduate admissions tool. Early versions focused heavily on vocabulary, but subsequent revisions increasingly emphasized logical reasoning and argument analysis.
2011
GRE Revised General Test
ETS overhauled the GRE to emphasize higher-order reasoning skills, including reading comprehension passages with embedded arguments and Critical Reasoning–style questions that require strengthening, weakening, or evaluating conclusions.

Understanding how to strengthen an argument is not merely a test-taking skill—it is a fundamental competency in academic research, professional decision-making, and civic discourse. The core question this lesson addresses is deceptively simple: Given a conclusion and its supporting evidence, which additional piece of information would make the conclusion more likely to be true? Answering this question demands that you first dissect an argument into its component parts, identify unstated assumptions, and then evaluate which new information shores up the logical bridge between evidence and conclusion.

SECTION 2

Core Principles & Definitions

Before you can strengthen an argument, you must be able to dissect one. Every GRE argument contains three essential components: the premises (the stated evidence or facts), the conclusion (the claim being advanced), and the assumption (the unstated logical link that must be true for the conclusion to follow from the premises). Strengthen questions target the assumption: they ask you to find the answer choice that supports or validates this hidden link. The following principles form the foundation of your approach.

1

Identify the Conclusion

The conclusion is the author's main claim—what the argument is ultimately trying to prove. Look for indicator words such as therefore, thus, consequently, it follows that, suggests that. Sometimes the conclusion appears at the beginning of the passage rather than the end.
2

Isolate the Premises

Premises are the facts, data, or observations the author uses as evidence. They are typically introduced by words like because, since, given that, studies show. Accept premises as given; the GRE does not ask you to question them.
3

Uncover the Assumption

The assumption is the unstated bridge between premises and conclusion. It fills a logical gap. For example, if the premise says 'Sales rose after an ad campaign' and the conclusion says 'The ad campaign caused sales to rise,' the assumption is that no other factor caused the increase.
4

Predict Before You Read Choices

Before reviewing answer choices, formulate a prediction: what type of information would make the conclusion more credible? This pre-phrasing technique prevents you from being seduced by attractive but irrelevant options.
5

Evaluate with the 'Denial Test'

Negate each answer choice. If negating a choice destroys or significantly weakens the argument, then that choice, in its original positive form, strengthens the argument. This technique is particularly useful when two choices seem plausible.
✦ KEY TAKEAWAY
Think of an argument as a bridge. The premises are one bank, the conclusion is the other, and the assumption is the span connecting them. Strengthening an argument means adding structural support—steel cables, additional pylons—beneath that span. Your job is not to build a new bridge or change the destination; it is to find the reinforcement that keeps the existing bridge from collapsing under scrutiny.
SECTION 3

Visual Explanation: Anatomy of a Strengthen Question

ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT: THE BRIDGE MODELPREMISES(Stated Evidence)"Sales rose 30% afterthe ad campaign launched."CONCLUSION(Author's Claim)"The ad campaign wasresponsible for the increase."ASSUMPTION(Unstated Link)"No other factor caused it."STRENGTHENER ✓(Correct Answer Choice)"No competitor ran a similarpromotion during this period."Supports the assumptionThe correct answer reinforces the unstated link between premises and conclusion.
This diagram illustrates the bridge model of argumentation. The premises (left) connect to the conclusion (right) through an unstated assumption (dashed box). The strengthener (bottom) reinforces the assumption, making the logical bridge more secure.

As the diagram makes clear, the key to any strengthen question lies in the assumption—the unstated logical connection between the evidence presented and the claim drawn from it. The correct answer does not restate the premise or rephrase the conclusion; instead, it provides new information that makes the assumption more plausible. In the example shown, the premise establishes a temporal correlation (sales rose after the ad campaign), and the conclusion asserts causation (the ad campaign caused the rise). The gap—the assumption—is that nothing else could explain the increase. A correct strengthener eliminates one such alternative explanation: if no competitor ran a similar promotion, one potential confounding variable is removed, and the causal claim becomes more credible.

SECTION 4

How Strengthen Questions Work: The Logical Mechanism

Although GRE strengthen questions do not involve mathematical formulas in the traditional sense, they do follow a rigorous logical structure that can be formalized. Understanding this structure at a deeper level will allow you to diagnose arguments more quickly and accurately. Most GRE arguments rely on inductive reasoning—they draw probable (not certain) conclusions from specific evidence. This means there is always an inferential gap that a strengthener can fill.

The Logical Structure

ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
Premise(s) + Assumption → Conclusion
Where Premise(s) = stated evidence; Assumption = unstated logical bridge; Conclusion = the author's claim. The arrow (→) represents the inferential leap.
STRENGTHEN MECHANISM
Strengthener ≈ Evidence that supports the Assumption
A correct strengthener either: (1) directly validates the assumption, (2) eliminates an alternative explanation, or (3) provides additional evidence that the causal/logical mechanism described in the argument actually operates as claimed.

Common Argument Patterns and Their Strengtheners

GRE arguments typically follow a handful of recurring logical patterns. Recognizing these patterns allows you to predict the type of strengthener the question demands. The first and most common is the causal argument, in which the author observes a correlation and concludes that one event caused another. To strengthen such an argument, you must rule out alternative causes, confirm that the cause preceded the effect, or show that removing the cause eliminates the effect. The second pattern is the analogy argument, in which the author draws a comparison between two situations and concludes that what is true of one must be true of the other. To strengthen an analogy argument, demonstrate that the two situations share the relevant features. The third pattern is the statistical/sampling argument, where a conclusion about a population is drawn from a sample. Strengtheners here confirm that the sample is representative.

THREE COMMON ARGUMENT PATTERNS & HOW TO STRENGTHEN THEMCAUSAL"X happened, then Y.So X caused Y."Strengthen by:• Rule out alternative causes• Show mechanism works• Confirm temporal order• Remove X → no YANALOGY"A is like B in some ways.So what's true of A is true of B."Strengthen by:• Show shared relevant features• Minimize key differences• Confirm underlying principle applies to bothSTATISTICAL"In our sample, 70% prefer X.So the population prefers X."Strengthen by:• Sample is representative• Sample size is adequate• No selection bias present• Confirm external validityUNIVERSAL PRINCIPLEA strengthener supports the ASSUMPTION, not the premise or the conclusion directly.It makes the inferential leap from evidence to claim more reasonable.COMMON TRAPS TO AVOID❌ Restates premise❌ Out of scope❌ Weakens instead❌ Reverses causation❌ Too extreme
The three most common GRE argument patterns—causal, analogy, and statistical—each require a specific type of strengthener. The universal principle (amber) and common traps (red, dashed) apply to all patterns.
SECTION 5

Classifying Strengthen Answer Choices

Understanding the taxonomy of answer choices is essential for efficient and accurate performance on strengthen questions. On the GRE, answer choices for strengthen questions generally fall into one of several categories, and learning to classify them will dramatically improve your speed. Not every choice that seems positive toward the conclusion actually strengthens it; some are irrelevant distractors or even subtle weakeners. The following table breaks down the main types of answer choices you will encounter.

Classification of common answer choice types in GRE Strengthen questions
Answer TypeDescriptionExample (for a causal argument)Correct?
Eliminates AlternativeRemoves a plausible alternative cause or explanation, making the stated cause more likely."No other marketing effort was underway during the same period."✓ Often correct
Confirms MechanismProvides evidence that the proposed mechanism actually operates as the argument claims."Customers surveyed cited the ad as their primary reason for purchasing."✓ Often correct
Broadens Evidence BaseAdds corroborating data or a parallel case that supports the conclusion."A similar ad campaign in another region also produced a 25% sales increase."✓ Sometimes correct
Restates PremiseRephrases information already provided in the stimulus. Adds no new support."Sales figures increased significantly following the campaign's debut."✗ Trap answer
Out of ScopeIntroduces information irrelevant to the specific logical gap in the argument."The company also expanded into international markets that year."✗ Trap answer
Weakener in DisguiseSounds supportive but actually introduces an alternative explanation or undermines the assumption."The product received a major price reduction at the same time."✗ Trap answer
🔍 THE DENIAL TEST IN ACTION
When stuck between two plausible answer choices, apply the denial test: negate each choice and ask whether the argument's conclusion is significantly damaged. If negating choice (B) devastates the conclusion but negating choice (D) merely makes it slightly less appealing, then (B) is the stronger strengthener. This test works because a true strengthener, when negated, functions as a weakener—and the most impactful weakener reveals the most critical assumption.
SECTION 6

Worked Example: Full Strengthen Question

Let us work through a complete GRE-style strengthen question using the systematic approach developed in the previous sections. Read the stimulus carefully, then follow each step.

📖 STIMULUS
A recent study found that employees at companies that offer flexible work schedules report higher job satisfaction than employees at companies with rigid schedules. The study's authors therefore concluded that implementing flexible work schedules is an effective strategy for improving employee job satisfaction.

The question asks: Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO A STRENGTHEN QUESTION

Step 1 — Identify the Conclusion

The conclusion is signaled by the word "therefore": implementing flexible work schedules is an effective strategy for improving employee job satisfaction. Note that this is a causal claim—flexible schedules cause improved satisfaction.
Conclusion = Flexible schedules cause improved satisfaction

Step 2 — Isolate the Premises

The premise is the study's finding: employees at companies with flexible schedules report higher satisfaction than those at companies with rigid schedules. This is a comparative observation—a correlation, not a proven causal link.
Premise = Correlation between flexibility and satisfaction

Step 3 — Uncover the Assumption

The argument assumes that the flexible schedules themselves—rather than some other factor—are responsible for the higher satisfaction. Companies that offer flexible schedules may also tend to be more progressive employers with higher pay, better benefits, or stronger management. The assumption is that these confounding factors are not the real cause.
Assumption = No confounding variable explains the satisfaction gap

Step 4 — Pre-phrase a Prediction

We need an answer that either (a) rules out an alternative cause of higher satisfaction, (b) shows that the flexible schedules specifically led to the increase, or (c) provides additional evidence that flexibility drives satisfaction. We should look for a choice that eliminates a confounding variable.
Prediction = Rule out alternative cause or confirm causal mechanism

Step 5 — Evaluate the Answer Choices

(A) The study surveyed over 10,000 employees across multiple industries. → Addresses sample size but not the causal gap. Tempting but insufficient—a large biased sample is still biased. (B) Companies with flexible schedules and companies with rigid schedules in the study offered comparable salaries, benefits, and management quality. → This directly addresses our prediction. By establishing that other factors were held roughly constant, this choice rules out major alternative explanations. (C) Job satisfaction is considered one of the most important factors in employee retention. → Irrelevant to whether schedules caused the satisfaction difference. (D) Some employees at companies with flexible schedules reported low satisfaction. → This slightly weakens the argument. (E) The study was conducted by a well-known research university. → Addresses credibility of the source, not the logical gap.
Answer: (B) — eliminates confounding variables, directly supporting the assumption
SECTION 7

Common Pitfalls & Strategic Comparisons

Even well-prepared students can fall into predictable traps on strengthen questions. The GRE is designed to exploit systematic cognitive biases—tendencies to favor choices that feel intuitively satisfying but miss the logical point. The following table compares effective strategies with the common errors that lead to incorrect answers.

Strategies vs. pitfalls in GRE Strengthen questions
Effective StrategyCommon PitfallWhy the Pitfall Fails
Target the assumption, not the conclusionChoosing an answer that simply agrees with the conclusionAgreeing with the conclusion is not the same as supporting the reasoning. A strengthener must address the logical gap, not just sound positive.
Pre-phrase before reading choicesReading all choices first and being swayed by emotionally appealing languageWithout a prediction, you become susceptible to choices that use the same vocabulary as the stimulus but fail to address the gap.
Apply the denial test to close callsPicking the first answer that "sounds right"The denial test provides an objective criterion: the choice whose negation most damages the argument is the strongest strengthener.
Distinguish between necessary and sufficient strengthenersDemanding that the answer "prove" the conclusionA strengthener only needs to make the conclusion more likely—not certain. Even incremental support is sufficient if it best addresses the gap.
Stay within the argument's scopeSelecting an answer that introduces new, tangential informationEven interesting or true information that does not connect to the specific assumption cannot strengthen the specific argument at hand.
✦ KEY TAKEAWAY
Think of the assumption as a crack in a dam. Many answer choices offer various materials—some offer concrete to patch the crack (correct), some offer paint to make the dam look prettier (restates premise), and some offer lumber to build something entirely different (out of scope). Your job is to find the concrete. The denial test is your pressure gauge: negate the choice and see if water rushes through.
SECTION 8

Connection to Other GRE Question Types

Strengthen questions do not exist in isolation; they are part of a family of argument-based question types on the GRE, and mastering one builds transferable skills for the others. The analytical framework you use for strengthen questions—identify conclusion, isolate premises, uncover assumption—is identical for weaken, assumption, and evaluate questions. The only difference lies in what you do with the assumption once you find it. Understanding these relationships will make you a more versatile and efficient test-taker.

Comparison of GRE argument question types
Question TypeWhat It AsksRelationship to the AssumptionKey Difference from Strengthen
StrengthenFind information that makes the conclusion more likelySupports or validates the assumptionThis is the baseline
WeakenFind information that makes the conclusion less likelyAttacks or undermines the assumptionMirror image: same skill, opposite direction. If you can strengthen, you can weaken.
Identify AssumptionState what must be true for the conclusion to holdIs the assumption itselfThe answer to an assumption question is what you use to predict the answer to a strengthen question.
EvaluateIdentify a question whose answer would help determine the argument's strengthTests whether the assumption holdsInstead of providing the supporting fact, you identify what question would need to be answered.
Inference / Must Be TrueDetermine what logically follows from the stated informationNo assumption to find—premises are treated as completeDifferent skill entirely: deductive rather than evaluative. No gap to fill.

The skill you develop in strengthen questions also transfers directly to the Analytical Writing section of the GRE, specifically the "Analyze an Argument" essay task. In that task, you must dissect an argument's logical structure, identify its assumptions, and explain how additional evidence could strengthen or weaken the author's reasoning. The vocabulary and framework you learn here—premises, conclusions, assumptions, confounding variables, causal vs. correlational reasoning—directly equips you for that essay.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

PROBLEM 1 — CONCEPTUAL
The following argument appeared in a city council report: "The downtown district has seen a 30% increase in foot traffic since the new light rail station opened six months ago. Several local businesses have reported higher revenues during the same period. Therefore, the light rail station is responsible for the economic growth in the downtown district." Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above? (A) The light rail station was built using a combination of federal and municipal funding. (B) City council members who supported the light rail project were reelected by wide margins. (C) Businesses located within two blocks of the light rail station showed significantly greater revenue increases than those located farther away. (D) The downtown district has historically experienced economic fluctuations tied to seasonal tourism. (E) The light rail system also connects to two other districts that have not reported revenue changes.
PROBLEM 2 — BASIC
Argument: "A city installed new streetlights on Main Street last year. Since then, the crime rate on Main Street has dropped by 15%. Therefore, the new streetlights reduced crime on Main Street." Which of the following, if true, most strengthens this argument? (A) Crime rates across the entire city declined by 15% during the same period. (B) Residents of Main Street feel safer since the lights were installed. (C) The city also installed security cameras on Main Street. (D) Crime rates on streets without new lighting did not decrease during the same period. (E) The new streetlights cost the city $2 million.
PROBLEM 3 — INTERMEDIATE
Argument: "A pharmaceutical company found that patients who took Drug X for six months showed a 40% improvement in symptom scores compared to their baseline. The company concluded that Drug X is effective for treating this condition." Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? (A) Drug X has fewer side effects than competing treatments. (B) Patients in a control group who received a placebo showed only a 5% improvement in symptom scores over the same period. (C) The study was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. (D) Drug X is less expensive to manufacture than similar medications. (E) Some patients reported that their symptoms returned after they stopped taking Drug X.
PROBLEM 4 — APPLIED
Argument: "A university noticed that students who participate in the peer tutoring program have, on average, GPAs that are 0.4 points higher than students who do not participate. The admissions dean therefore recommended expanding the peer tutoring program to improve overall student academic performance." Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the dean's recommendation? (A) Students with higher GPAs are more likely to volunteer as tutors. (B) The tutoring program currently has a waiting list of 300 students who could not be enrolled due to limited capacity. (C) Students who were randomly assigned to the tutoring program in a pilot study improved their GPAs more than a matched control group. (D) The peer tutoring program also provides social benefits, such as increased sense of community. (E) The university's average GPA has remained stable for the past five years.
PROBLEM 5 — CRITICAL THINKING
Argument: "Archaeologists discovered that ancient settlement X, which was abandoned around 1200 BCE, shows evidence of widespread fire damage. At roughly the same time, a prolonged drought affected the region. The archaeologists concluded that the drought led to the abandonment of settlement X, and that the fire damage was caused by raids from neighboring peoples desperate for resources during the drought." Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the archaeologists' conclusion? (A) Several other settlements in the region were also abandoned around 1200 BCE. (B) Pollen analysis confirms that the region experienced significantly reduced rainfall between 1250 and 1150 BCE. (C) The fire damage at settlement X is concentrated in storage facilities and granaries rather than distributed randomly across the settlement. (D) Settlement X was located along a major trade route that connected several ancient civilizations. (E) Skeletal remains found at the site show no evidence of violent conflict.
SUMMARY

Lesson Summary

GRE Strengthen the Argument questions require you to find the answer choice that makes a conclusion more likely to be true. Every argument has three components: premises (stated evidence), a conclusion (the author's claim), and an assumption (the unstated logical bridge). The correct answer always targets and supports the assumption, not the premise or the conclusion itself. The three most common argument patterns are causal (correlation presented as causation), analogy (comparison between two situations), and statistical (sample-to-population generalizations).

Your systematic approach should follow five steps: (1) identify the conclusion using signal words like "therefore" and "thus"; (2) isolate the premises; (3) uncover the assumption by asking what must be true for the conclusion to follow; (4) pre-phrase a prediction before reading the answer choices; and (5) evaluate choices using the denial test—negate each option and check whether the argument collapses. Watch for trap answers that restate the premise, introduce irrelevant information, or subtly weaken the argument. These skills transfer directly to weaken, assumption, and evaluate question types, as well as to the Analytical Writing section.

Varsity Tutors • GRE Verbal • Strengthen an Argument