Estimated study time: 45 minutes
Content:
The Analyze an Argument task presents a short passage containing someone else's argument and asks you to critique it — not to agree or disagree with the conclusion, but to evaluate the logical quality of the reasoning. The instruction will specify what to critique: assumptions, evidence quality, questions that would strengthen or weaken the argument, or alternative explanations. Always respond to the specific instruction — answering the wrong question is a common mistake.
The fundamental difference from the Issue essay: in the Argument essay, you are NOT taking a position on the underlying topic. If the prompt argues that "Northwood Mall should expand its food court to increase foot traffic," you should not argue whether food courts are good ideas. You must analyze the logical flaws, unsupported assumptions, and missing evidence in the given argument. Your job is to be a ruthless logical critic.
Argument essays succeed by identifying specific logical flaws. The most common flaws on GRE prompts include: (1) Correlation-causation error — assuming that because two events coincide, one caused the other. (2) Unrepresentative sample — the evidence is from one group that cannot be generalized to the target population. (3) False analogy — assuming that because two situations are similar in one way, a conclusion from one applies to the other. (4) Temporal assumption — assuming past conditions still apply. (5) Either-or fallacy — assuming only two options exist when more are possible. (6) Circular reasoning — using the conclusion as a premise. (7) Missing alternative explanations — the argument ignores other possible causes for the observed data.
For each logical flaw you identify, follow the same structure: (a) State the flaw explicitly, (b) Explain why it weakens the argument, (c) Describe what evidence or information would be needed to address it. Do not just list flaws — develop each one with this full three-part treatment.
A critical rule: do NOT agree with the argument and defend it. Even if you personally think the conclusion is correct, the task requires you to critique the logical structure. Similarly, do not evaluate whether the conclusion is true — only whether the reasoning from evidence to conclusion is valid. An argument can have a true conclusion but still be logically flawed if the evidence doesn't support it.
The conclusion of an Argument essay should summarize the argument's overall logical weakness and specify what would be needed to make it convincing — more data, a different study design, additional controls, or addressing alternative explanations.
Key Terms:
Quiz Questions:
Q1. A GRE Argument prompt reads: "The Lakeview Community Center recently installed new exercise equipment. Over the following year, membership increased by 25%. Therefore, to increase membership, other community centers should install new exercise equipment." The instruction asks you to "identify assumptions and explain how they affect the argument." Which flaw is most central to critique?
A) The argument is correct — new equipment clearly drives membership B) The argument assumes that the equipment caused the membership increase, but alternative explanations (economic conditions, marketing, population growth) are not addressed C) The argument uses the wrong type of exercise equipment D) The argument should have surveyed members about their preferences first
Answer: B — The central flaw is the correlation-causation assumption: the argument assumes the equipment caused the 25% increase. But many other factors could explain growing membership — a competitor closed, a new marketing campaign launched, the local population grew. Without ruling out alternatives, the causal claim is unsupported. Additionally, the argument assumes Lakeview is analogous to "other community centers" — a false analogy if those centers differ in demographics, location, or existing equipment.
---
Q2. The same prompt asks you to "describe evidence that would strengthen the argument." The best response is:
A) "The argument would be strengthened if the equipment was higher quality." B) "The argument would be strengthened by a controlled study comparing centers that installed equipment with similar centers that did not, tracking membership over the same period — and by survey data showing members joined specifically because of the new equipment." C) "The argument would be strengthened if the community center had a better location." D) "The argument would be strengthened by increasing the membership discount."
Answer: B — Strengthening the argument requires addressing its logical flaws. The causal claim needs controlled comparison (to rule out alternative explanations) and direct member feedback (to confirm the equipment was the reason they joined). Answer A discusses quality irrelevant to the causal claim. C and D are unrelated to the argument's logic.
---
Q3. An argument states: "A study of 50 employees at TechCorp showed that those who worked from home reported higher job satisfaction. Therefore, companies should allow all employees to work from home to improve satisfaction." The most significant logical flaw is:
A) The sample size of 50 is too small for any conclusion B) The study establishes only that home workers reported higher satisfaction — but self-selection (employees who chose remote work may have different baseline characteristics) and non-generalizability (TechCorp may differ from other companies) undermine the universal recommendation C) Job satisfaction is not the only metric that matters D) The study should have included managers, not just employees
Answer: B — Two major flaws: first, self-selection bias — the home workers chose to work remotely, and may have higher satisfaction for reasons unrelated to the arrangement (better home environments, more senior employees, etc.). Second, the unrepresentative sample — a single tech company's 50-person sample cannot support a universal recommendation for "all companies." Both flaws are about the gap between the evidence and the sweeping conclusion.
---
Q4. An argument concludes: "Since our restaurant began playing jazz music, sales have increased 18%. Clearly, jazz music increases restaurant sales." The instruction says "discuss alternative explanations." The strongest alternative explanation is:
A) Jazz music is not popular with all demographic groups B) The sales increase coincides with the music change but could be explained by any of several simultaneous factors: a new menu rollout, a change in restaurant hours, a nearby competitor's closure, seasonal increase in foot traffic, or improved marketing during the same period C) The restaurant should have tested classical music instead D) An 18% sales increase is not large enough to be meaningful
Answer: B — The argument ignores that many factors could have simultaneously changed when the music was introduced. Without a controlled test (other restaurants identical except for the music), there is no way to attribute the 18% increase to the jazz music specifically. Alternative explanations are the core critique for correlation-causation flaws.
---
Q5. Which of the following best characterizes a score-6 Argument essay response?
A) An essay that agrees with the argument's conclusion while noting some minor weaknesses B) An essay that lists as many flaws as possible without developing any of them C) An essay that identifies 2-3 central logical flaws, develops each with a clear explanation of why it undermines the argument and what evidence would address it, uses clear and varied prose, and ends with a summary of what would be needed to make the argument convincing D) An essay of at least 600 words that comprehensively covers every possible flaw in the argument
Answer: C — ETS graders reward depth over breadth. A score-6 Argument essay identifies the most important flaws (not all possible ones), develops each thoroughly (states the flaw, explains the impact, identifies what evidence would resolve it), and demonstrates logical rigor through the quality of analysis. Agreeing with the conclusion (A) misunderstands the task. A list without development (B) demonstrates no analytical depth. Length alone (D) does not determine score.
---