Argument structure on the GMAT
60 flashcards covering Argument structure on the GMAT for the GMAT Verbal section.
Argument structure is the framework that underlies logical arguments, consisting of key elements like the main conclusion, supporting premises, and any assumptions or evidence that connect them. For someone new to this, think of it as dissecting a persuasive statement to see how its parts fit together and whether it holds up under scrutiny. Mastering argument structure builds critical thinking skills, which are essential for evaluating claims in real-world scenarios, and it's a foundational topic on exams like the GMAT.
On the GMAT Verbal section, argument structure appears mainly in Critical Reasoning questions, where you might strengthen, weaken, or identify flaws in an argument. Common traps include missing hidden assumptions or falling for irrelevant details, so watch for questions that test logical gaps or faulty reasoning. Focus on quickly breaking down arguments into their core components to answer efficiently and avoid time-wasting errors.
A concrete tip: Practice outlining arguments in simple terms to spot weaknesses faster.
Terms (60)
- 01
Premise
A premise is a statement that provides evidence or reasons to support a conclusion in an argument.
- 02
Conclusion
The conclusion is the main claim or point that an argument is trying to prove, often indicated by words like 'therefore' or 'thus'.
- 03
Assumption
An assumption is an unstated belief that must be true for the argument's conclusion to follow from its premises.
- 04
Flaw
A flaw is a weakness in an argument's reasoning, such as a logical error that undermines the conclusion.
- 05
Strengthen
To strengthen an argument means to provide evidence or reasoning that makes the conclusion more likely to be true.
- 06
Weaken
To weaken an argument is to introduce evidence or reasoning that makes the conclusion less likely to be true.
- 07
Inference
An inference is a logical conclusion drawn from the given premises, requiring no additional information.
- 08
Evidence
Evidence consists of facts or data presented in an argument to support the premises and ultimately the conclusion.
- 09
Counterexample
A counterexample is a specific instance that disproves a general claim made in the argument.
- 10
Analogy
An analogy in an argument compares two similar situations to draw a conclusion, but it can be flawed if the similarities are not relevant.
- 11
Causal Argument
A causal argument claims that one event causes another, often requiring examination for alternative explanations.
- 12
Sampling Error
Sampling error occurs when an argument generalizes from a small or unrepresentative sample, leading to an unreliable conclusion.
- 13
Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization is a flaw where an argument draws a broad conclusion from insufficient evidence or examples.
- 14
Ad Hominem
Ad hominem is a flaw that attacks the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument's content.
- 15
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is a flaw where the conclusion is restated in the premises, making the argument logically invalid.
- 16
Necessary Condition
A necessary condition must be true for the conclusion to hold, but it alone does not guarantee it.
- 17
Sufficient Condition
A sufficient condition, if true, guarantees the conclusion, though other conditions might also lead to it.
- 18
Boldface Question
A boldface question asks about the roles of specific statements in an argument, such as whether they are premises or conclusions.
- 19
Evaluate the Argument
Evaluate the argument questions require identifying what information would help assess the argument's validity.
- 20
Paradox
A paradox in an argument is an apparent contradiction that needs resolution through additional evidence or reasoning.
- 21
Scope Shift
Scope shift is a flaw where the argument changes the range of its claims without justification, such as from specific to general.
- 22
Correlation vs. Causation
This common trap confuses a correlation between two events with a causal relationship, ignoring other possible factors.
- 23
Overgeneralization
Overgeneralization occurs when an argument applies a conclusion too broadly based on limited evidence.
- 24
False Dilemma
A false dilemma flaw presents only two options when more exist, limiting the argument's consideration of alternatives.
- 25
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to authority is a flaw that relies on an expert's opinion without sufficient evidence or relevance.
- 26
Slippery Slope
Slippery slope is a flaw that assumes one action will lead to a series of extreme consequences without evidence.
- 27
Identifying the Role
Identifying the role involves determining how a statement functions in the argument, such as supporting a premise or countering an assumption.
- 28
Assumption Question
An assumption question asks for an unstated idea that the argument depends on, often requiring the negation technique.
- 29
Strengthen Question
A strengthen question seeks an answer choice that provides support for the argument's conclusion.
- 30
Weaken Question
A weaken question looks for evidence or reasoning that challenges the argument's conclusion.
- 31
Inference Question
An inference question requires selecting a statement that logically follows from the argument's information.
- 32
Explain a Discrepancy
Explain a discrepancy questions ask for a fact that resolves an apparent contradiction in the argument.
- 33
Strategy for Assumptions
A strategy for assumptions is to identify gaps between premises and conclusion, then find answers that fill those gaps.
- 34
Common Traps in Assumptions
Common traps in assumption questions include choosing answers that are true but irrelevant or that weaken rather than support.
- 35
Negation Technique
The negation technique tests assumptions by negating answer choices to see if it destroys the argument.
- 36
Sufficient Assumption
A sufficient assumption, if added, would make the argument logically valid on its own.
- 37
Necessary Assumption
A necessary assumption is required for the argument to hold, but it may not be enough by itself.
- 38
Flaw in Reasoning
Flaw in reasoning questions identify specific logical errors, such as unwarranted assumptions or faulty analogies.
- 39
Parallel Reasoning
Parallel reasoning involves recognizing arguments with similar structures, often used in questions testing logical consistency.
- 40
Argument by Analogy
Argument by analogy draws conclusions based on similarities, but it can fail if key differences are overlooked.
- 41
Conditional Statements
Conditional statements in arguments use if-then logic, where the 'if' part must precede the 'then' for validity.
- 42
Predicting Answer Choices
Predicting answer choices means anticipating what a correct response should do before reviewing options.
- 43
Alternative Explanations
Alternative explanations are other possible reasons for the evidence, which can weaken causal arguments.
- 44
Counterpremise
A counterpremise is a statement that opposes or challenges a premise, potentially weakening the argument.
- 45
Time Management in CR
Time management in CR involves quickly identifying the conclusion and assumptions to efficiently evaluate questions.
- 46
Common Wrong Answer Types
Common wrong answer types include those that are irrelevant, strengthen when weakening is needed, or introduce new information.
- 47
Plan Questions
Plan questions ask whether a proposed plan will achieve its goal, requiring evaluation of assumptions in the plan.
- 48
Unstated Evidence
Unstated evidence refers to implied facts in an argument that must be assumed for the conclusion to be valid.
- 49
Relevance of Evidence
The relevance of evidence is how directly it supports the premises, with irrelevant evidence being a common flaw.
- 50
Generalization from Anecdotes
Generalization from anecdotes is a flaw where personal stories are used as broad evidence without statistical support.
- 51
Causality Reversal
Causality reversal is a trap where the argument mistakenly swaps cause and effect in a relationship.
- 52
Ambiguous Language
Ambiguous language in arguments uses words with multiple meanings, leading to unclear or flawed conclusions.
- 53
Questioning the Source
Questioning the source involves checking the credibility or bias of evidence providers in the argument.
- 54
Logical Consistency
Logical consistency ensures that all parts of an argument align without contradictions.
- 55
Implication vs. Inference
Implication is what the argument suggests, while inference is a direct logical step, often confused in questions.
- 56
Evaluating Counterarguments
Evaluating counterarguments means considering opposing views to test the strength of the original argument.
- 57
Premise-Conclusion Link
The premise-conclusion link is the logical connection that must be sound for the argument to be persuasive.
- 58
Hidden Assumptions
Hidden assumptions are implicit beliefs in arguments that are not explicitly stated but are crucial for validity.
- 59
Strengthening with Analogies
Strengthening with analogies involves using similar examples to bolster the argument's claims.
- 60
Weaking with Exceptions
Weakening with exceptions means providing cases that contradict the argument's general rules.