Evaluate Argument Logic
Help Questions
GRE Verbal › Evaluate Argument Logic
A technology columnist claims that the only reason people worry about data privacy is that they do not understand how encryption works. Therefore, the columnist concludes, public concern about data privacy would disappear if schools required a basic course on encryption. The argument relies on which questionable reasoning pattern?
It treats a complex issue as having a single cause and ignores other possible reasons for privacy concerns.
It assumes that because encryption exists, privacy is impossible to protect.
It supports its conclusion by presenting a wide range of empirical studies across multiple countries.
It concludes that because some people understand encryption, no one worries about privacy.
It challenges the definition of encryption rather than linking education to privacy attitudes.
Explanation
This question tests the evaluation of argument logic by identifying oversimplifications in causal explanations. Sound reasoning addresses multifaceted issues with nuanced causes, whereas flawed reasoning attributes complex problems to a single factor. The columnist claims privacy worries stem only from misunderstanding encryption, concluding education would eliminate concerns. This treats privacy as having one cause, ignoring other reasons like data misuse or surveillance. Choice A correctly characterizes this questionable pattern. In contrast, choice E is a distractor that distorts the argument's conclusion about worry. Additionally, choice B fails as the argument does not rely on broad empirical studies.
A university administrator argues that because 9 out of the last 10 students caught plagiarizing in introductory courses were first-year students, the university should require all first-year students to complete an additional ethics module. The administrator concludes that first-year students are especially prone to plagiarism and that targeting them will substantially reduce academic dishonesty. The argument is most vulnerable to which criticism?
It assumes that any student who plagiarizes must do so intentionally rather than accidentally.
It overlooks the possibility that first-year students are overrepresented in introductory courses and therefore more likely to be caught there, even if their propensity to plagiarize is no higher than others'.
It correctly infers a general tendency from a representative, randomly selected sample of all students.
It mistakenly concludes that no upper-level students ever plagiarize.
It provides too many examples of plagiarism cases to support any general conclusion.
Explanation
This question tests evaluating argument logic, specifically the ability to identify sampling bias in statistical reasoning. Valid statistical inferences require representative samples that accurately reflect the population being studied. The administrator observes that 9 out of 10 students caught plagiarizing in introductory courses were first-year students and concludes that first-year students are more prone to plagiarism. However, this reasoning overlooks a critical confounding variable: first-year students likely make up a much larger proportion of students in introductory courses than in advanced courses. Choice A correctly identifies this flaw—if first-year students constitute 90% of introductory course enrollment, then finding that 90% of plagiarism cases involve first-year students tells us nothing about their relative propensity to plagiarize. Choice E misrepresents the argument by claiming it concludes that no upper-level students plagiarize, when the argument actually focuses on the higher rate among first-year students.
A town council argues that because the town’s recycling rate has not improved in three years, the town must choose between two options: either impose steep fines on residents who do not recycle or abandon the recycling program entirely. The council concludes that steep fines are necessary. Which of the following identifies a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
It assumes without evidence that recycling has no environmental benefits.
It presents a false dichotomy by assuming there are only two possible responses, ignoring other measures that might increase recycling.
It claims that because fines have worked in other towns, they will necessarily fail in this town.
It draws its conclusion from a carefully controlled experiment with multiple comparison towns.
It criticizes residents’ moral character rather than addressing recycling policy.
Explanation
This question tests the evaluation of argument logic by identifying false dichotomies in decision-making. Sound reasoning considers a full range of options, whereas flawed reasoning presents limited choices as exhaustive, ignoring viable alternatives. The town council claims the town must either impose fines or abandon recycling, concluding fines are necessary. This exemplifies a false dichotomy by overlooking other strategies like education or incentives to boost recycling. Choice A correctly identifies this flaw by noting the assumption of only two options. However, choice E is a distractor that reverses the argument's logic about fines' effectiveness. Likewise, choice D fails because the argument does not criticize residents' character.
A financial adviser states that among her clients, those who check their investment accounts daily tend to have lower long-term returns than those who check monthly. She concludes that checking accounts daily causes poor investment performance and advises all investors to avoid frequent monitoring. Which of the following identifies a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
It concludes that because some clients check daily, all clients must check daily.
It assumes that frequent monitoring causes lower returns, even though investors who are already anxious or inexperienced might both monitor more and make worse decisions.
It supports its conclusion by showing that daily monitoring always leads to higher fees at all brokerages.
It presumes that all investors have the same financial goals and time horizons.
It denies that any investor can ever benefit from tracking account activity.
Explanation
This question tests the evaluation of argument logic by critiquing reverse causation assumptions. Sound reasoning distinguishes correlation from causation, especially when traits may influence behaviors. The adviser observes lower returns among daily checkers and concludes frequent monitoring causes poor performance. This assumes causation without considering that anxious investors might both check more and perform worse. Choice A correctly identifies this flaw in overlooking self-selection. On the other hand, choice D is a distractor since the argument does not discuss fees or prove through them. Likewise, choice E fails as it misrepresents the argument's generalization.
A technology review site argues: "The new AlphaPhone has a battery that lasts 20% longer than last year's model. Longer battery life is what consumers want most in a smartphone. Therefore, the AlphaPhone is the best smartphone on the market." The argument is most vulnerable to which criticism?
It fails to mention the exact chemical composition of the AlphaPhone battery, which is required to compare smartphones.
It shows that last year's model was the best phone on the market, since the new model improved upon it.
It assumes that because the AlphaPhone is better than its predecessor in one respect, it must be better than all competing phones overall.
It proves that the AlphaPhone is the best smartphone because it defines "best" as "has longer battery life."
It correctly concludes that battery life is irrelevant to consumers because consumers also care about cameras.
Explanation
This question tests evaluating argument logic, specifically the ability to identify flaws in comparative reasoning. Sound arguments about superiority require comparing all relevant features, not just improvements over previous versions. The review site notes that the AlphaPhone has better battery life than its predecessor and that consumers want longer battery life, then concludes it's the best smartphone on the market. This reasoning assumes that because the phone improved in one dimension compared to its own previous model, it must be superior to all competing phones across all dimensions. Choice A correctly identifies this flaw—being better than a predecessor in one respect doesn't establish superiority over all competitors, especially since other phones might have even longer battery life or excel in other important features. Choice D mischaracterizes the argument as defining "best" solely as battery life, when the argument actually claims battery life is what consumers want most, not that it's the only criterion.
A local newspaper reports that in neighborhoods where a new community garden was built, residents report higher satisfaction with their neighborhood than residents in neighborhoods without gardens. The newspaper concludes that building community gardens will increase neighborhood satisfaction and urges the city to fund gardens in every neighborhood. Which of the following identifies a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
It claims that neighborhood satisfaction cannot be measured by surveys.
It assumes that all residents enjoy gardening as a hobby.
It relies on the premise that gardens always reduce crime, which is not stated in the argument.
It concludes that because some neighborhoods have gardens, no neighborhood can have other amenities.
It assumes that the gardens caused the higher satisfaction, even though neighborhoods that received gardens might already differ in resources, engagement, or other improvements.
Explanation
This question tests the evaluation of argument logic by detecting selection biases in comparisons. Sound reasoning controls for baseline differences, while flawed reasoning assumes interventions cause outcomes without such controls. The newspaper reports higher satisfaction in neighborhoods with gardens, concluding gardens cause it. This assumes causation while ignoring pre-existing differences in resources or engagement. Choice A accurately identifies this flaw by noting potential confounding factors. In contrast, choice D is a distractor as the argument does not limit amenities exclusively. Likewise, choice E fails because crime reduction is not a premise in the argument.
A health columnist claims: "People who take daily vitamin supplements report fewer colds each winter than people who do not. Therefore, vitamins prevent colds, and employers should provide free supplements to reduce sick days." Which of the following best describes the reasoning employed in the argument?
It concludes that supplements are ineffective because some supplement users still catch colds.
It treats a correlation between supplement use and fewer colds as sufficient evidence that supplements cause the reduction in colds.
It establishes by controlled experiment that supplements reduce sick days in the workplace.
It infers that a policy will be effective because it resembles a policy that worked in another context.
It rejects all medical studies in favor of anecdotal evidence from a single individual.
Explanation
This question tests your ability to evaluate argument logic by identifying how the argument moves from evidence to conclusion. Sound causal reasoning requires distinguishing between correlation and causation, particularly when dealing with self-reported data. The columnist observes a correlation—people who take vitamin supplements report fewer colds—and immediately concludes that vitamins prevent colds. This reasoning pattern treats the observed correlation as sufficient proof of causation without considering alternative explanations, such as the possibility that health-conscious people both take vitamins and engage in other healthy behaviors that reduce colds. Choice B accurately describes this flawed reasoning pattern by noting that the argument treats correlation as sufficient evidence for causation. Choice D incorrectly characterizes the argument as rejecting medical studies, when the argument actually relies on reported data (which could come from studies) rather than anecdotal evidence from a single person.
A university librarian notes that during the past year, the number of students who checked out printed books declined while the number of students who accessed the library’s online database increased. The librarian concludes that students prefer digital sources to printed books and that the university should reduce spending on printed materials and allocate those funds to expanding digital subscriptions. The argument is most vulnerable to which criticism?
It presumes that printed books are always more expensive than digital subscriptions.
It overlooks the possibility that some digital subscriptions may contain inaccurate information.
It bases its conclusion on the claim that all students have equal access to reliable internet at home.
It assumes that the observed shift in usage reflects students’ preferences rather than other factors such as course requirements or changes in database availability.
It argues that because printed books are traditional, they must be superior to digital sources.
Explanation
This question tests evaluating argument logic by spotting assumptions in interpreting trends. Sound reasoning involves considering multiple explanations for observed data, whereas flawed reasoning jumps to conclusions based on preferences without evidence. The librarian notes a shift from printed books to digital databases and concludes that students prefer digital sources. This reflects assuming that the usage shift indicates preference, overlooking factors like course requirements or database changes. Choice A correctly characterizes this flaw by pointing out the failure to consider alternative influences on usage. On the other hand, choice E is a distractor that misrepresents the argument, as it does not claim printed books are superior due to tradition. Likewise, choice C fails because the argument does not presume anything about relative expenses.
A career counselor claims that graduates who major in philosophy score higher on a certain standardized admissions test than graduates who major in many other fields. The counselor concludes that majoring in philosophy improves test performance and advises students who want high scores to switch their major to philosophy. Which of the following identifies a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
It concludes that because philosophy majors score higher, students in other majors cannot ever score highly.
It assumes that standardized tests measure only philosophical knowledge.
It assumes that the major itself causes higher scores, without considering that students who choose philosophy may differ in prior skills, interests, or preparation.
It accurately establishes causation by randomly assigning students to majors.
It refutes its own conclusion by noting that some philosophy majors do not take the test.
Explanation
This question tests the evaluation of argument logic by identifying self-selection in major choices. Sound reasoning isolates causes from correlations, but flawed reasoning assumes majors cause outcomes without considering student differences. The counselor notes higher scores for philosophy majors and concludes the major improves performance. This assumes causation, ignoring that skilled students may choose philosophy. Choice A accurately identifies this flaw by highlighting prior differences. On the other hand, choice E is a distractor since no random assignment is used. Additionally, choice C fails as it overstates the argument's exclusivity.
A civic group argues that the city’s public meetings are poorly attended. The group concludes that citizens must not care about local government, and therefore the city should stop holding public meetings and instead let elected officials make decisions without public input. Which of the following identifies a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
It argues that because public meetings are important, attendance must be high.
It assumes that elected officials are always corrupt.
It bases its conclusion on a comparison between public meetings and jury duty.
It assumes that low attendance proves citizens do not care, without considering other reasons for low turnout such as meeting times, awareness, or accessibility.
It concludes that if attendance is low now, it will be impossible for attendance ever to increase.
Explanation
This question tests evaluating argument logic by spotting assumptions in interpreting behavior. Sound reasoning considers various reasons for actions, while flawed reasoning infers attitudes directly from outcomes without alternatives. The group observes low meeting attendance and concludes citizens do not care. This assumes low turnout proves apathy, ignoring barriers like timing or awareness. Choice A correctly identifies this flaw by noting overlooked reasons. Conversely, choice C is a distractor that inverts the argument's logic. Likewise, choice E fails because the argument does not claim attendance can never increase.