List of Flaw

A. Unjustified Assumptions

1. Assumes Shared Beliefs

Here, the arguer assumes that the listener will share certain basic beliefs—some of which are mere
impressions, prejudices, and so on.

2. Draws Extreme Conclusion

The conclusion uses language so extreme that the premises cannot justify that conclusion:
Watch out for these extreme words: only, never, always, cannot, certainly, obviously, inevitably, most,
least, best, worst. Look for dramatic predictions and assertions: X costs fa r more than Y, an immediate
increase in Z, a sharp decline in W.

3. Assumes Skill and/or Will

For people to do something, they have to be able to do it, and they have to want to. Both skill and will
are necessary.
Some arguments give you one piece but not the other. A recommendation that everyone should exercise
two hours every day might give reasons why people should want to do so, but ignore the fact that not
everyone can exercise that much (e.g., people who are seriously ill).

4. Uses Vague or Altered Terms

Just as you are on the lookout for extreme language, you’re also on the lookout for vague or altered
language throughout the argument.
Likewise, any change in terms through the course of the argument should make you arch an eyebrow.
Whether the terms become more general or more specific, the argument now has a fissure in its logic.

5, Assumes Signs of a Thing = Thing Itself

This version of Vague or Altered Terms is worth calling out on its own. Don’t confuse external signs
and reality. Quite often, the signs can be misleading.
For instance, medical tests often report false positives, while failing to catch everyone who actually
has the disease. The number of people who test positive for a disease is not identical to the number of
people who have the disease.
Notice that students' grades and quality of education are not the same thing. Maybe professors grade
online students more leniently or give them easier assignments.

B. Causation Errors

6. Mixes Up Correlation and Causation

You’ve already seen this error. If two things occur together (correlation), you can’t automatically conclude
that a particular causal model is at work.

To review: If X and Y seem to be correlated, then there are four possibilities:

(1) X causes Y.
(2) Y causes X.
(3) Z (some other phenomenon) causes both X and Y.
(4) It’s an accident; you don’t have all the data.

When an argument jumps to a causal relationship, question that relationship. Couldn’t it be the other
way around?
Correlation/Causation errors often have to do with changes or events that occur at the same time or in
sequence. Don’t assume that simultaneous events are necessarily connected. Likewise, if X happened
shortly after Y, you cannot necessarily conclude that X was caused by Y.

7. Assumes the Future = the Past

To comply with consumer protection laws, investment firms have to tell you that “past performance
is no guarantee of future results.” So why do they trumpet the fact that their precious metals mutual
fund exceeded its benchmark for the last three quarters?
Because they know that people fall into this logical trap. O f course, in many ways the future will be like
the past. If you didn’t assume so, you would go crazy. But this assumption goes too far.
Remember that the future does not have to mimic the past. In a sense, every plan and proposal is guilty
of this error, since every plan and proposal is forward-looking but uses the past as evidence. But some
plans are more guilty than others.

8. Assumes the Best Means Success

This flaw could also be called “Just because a plan didn’t work doesn’t mean it wasn’t our best shot,” or
“Just because a protection fails doesn’t mean it wasn’t protecting.”
Sometimes, a variety o f options are available to solve a problem, but none of those options are very
likely to succeed. This does not affect whether an option can be considered the best, whether it had some
beneficial effect, or whether it could still be the best solution to a less severe version of the problem.
For instance, if a new CEO is hired to try to rescue a company on the brink of bankruptcy, even the
best possible effort simply may not be enough. If someone dies of a terrible disease, that does not mean
that he did not receive optimal medical care. Sometimes even the best thing fails.

C. Comparison Errors

9. Has Selection Bias

Whenever you compare two groups, you have to make sure that the two groups are legitimately
comparable.
So the membership of each group has to be selected appropriately. This is particularly tricky when
the two groups seem comparable—for instance, when they are both drawn from the same population.
There are a few variations of selection bias.

Unrepresentative Sample
Marketers, pollsters, and social scientists of all stripes use samples. Its impossible to ask everyone in
the entire population for their opinions on single- versus double-ply toilet paper, so instead you ask 100
people. You have to ensure that the sample is representative, though. In particular, you have to be wary
of volunteers, as noted above.

Survivor Bias
It is not logical to judge an entire group by concentrating only on who or what survived a process or
time period, while ignoring the non-survivors. Its easy to fall into this trap, though; after all, its often
hard to find out much about the people or things that didn’t make it!

Ever-Changing Pool
Many groups of people have a rotating cast of members. If a civic club voted in favor of something
yesterday
and against it 20 years ago, you wouldn’t automatically conclude that people in the club changed
their minds over time; its pretty likely that the club includes different people than it did back then.

10. The Troubled Analogy

There’s nothing wrong with a good analogy, but analogies in GMAT arguments are never good. Every
time you make an analogy, you’re saying that something is like something else— except that it isn’t
exactly like that, or you’d just be talking about the original topic. It’s your job to note the possible
dissimilarities.

D. Math Errors

11. Confuses the Quantities

Mathematical flaws in Critical Reasoning arguments usually rely on conceptual confusion.
For instance, you will need to keep percents and real numbers straight. If David gets a 10% pay raise
and Marie gets an 8% pay raise, who now has a higher salary? Without knowing how much the two
people made before, who knows? Don’t confuse percents with actual numbers of dollars, people, etc.
E. Communication Errors

12. Missing the Point