Overview: Flaw Questions | Verbal for GMAT PDF Download

Introduction

In the context of the GMAT, mastering logical flaw questions is crucial because they assess your ability to critically evaluate arguments—a skill highly valued in business and academia. GMAT often presents complex arguments, and successfully pinpointing the logical flaws demonstrates your capacity to think analytically, a key competency tested in the exam. 

What are Flaw Questions?

In critical reasoning questions, particularly those that ask you to identify the logical flaw in an argument, the goal is to identify the error in the reasoning that weakens the overall argument. 

Important Concepts

Know the Question Type:

• Learn to spot this kind of question. It usually mentions "flaw," but sometimes uses different words like "vulnerable to criticism." Keep in mind that weaken questions might also say "flaw," but they add "if true." Flaw questions skip the "if true" part.

Tackling Flaw Questions:

• Flaw questions come with an argument—facts, a point, and maybe counter-points. All arguments assume something, so jot down any assumptions you think of. The goal is to find an answer pointing out a possible problem in one of these assumptions.

Watch for Tricky Choices:

• Be careful with common traps! Answer options often bring in distractions that don't matter. For instance, B and D change details to shift focus from the main issues. Meanwhile, C and E go off-topic, talking about what readers think instead of checking the reviewer's reasoning.

Solved Examples

Q1: The report "Music Trends Today" asserts that modern songwriters lack the musical proficiency found in their predecessors. The report's examination of 100 songs, 50 from the past and 50 contemporary, compellingly shows that none of the current songs exhibit the same musical skill as those from earlier times.

Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reviewer’s argument?
(A) The songs chosen by the report's author for analysis could be those that most support the report's thesis.
(B) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a song.
(C) The title of the report could cause readers to accept the report’s thesis even before they read the analysis of the songs that supports it.
(D) The particular methods currently used by songwriters in this region could require less musical skill than do methods used by songwriters in other parts of the world.
(E) A reader who was not familiar with the language of music criticism might not be convinced by the report’s analysis of the 100 songs.

Step 1: Recognise the Question

First, carefully read the question stem:

Which of the following indicates the most significant logical flaw in the reviewer’s argument?

The crucial language here is "most significant logical flaw," signalling a Flaw question. The stem doesn't reveal the argument's conclusion, so we must extract it from the passage. This is an Assumption Family question, suggesting that we might brainstorm some assumptions while reading. If successful, this will aid in identifying an answer that exposes a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

Step 2: Break Down the Argument

The first sentence presents the report’s claim: modern songwriters lack the musical proficiency of their predecessors. The reviewer supports this claim, stating that the analysis of 100 songs (50 from the past and 50 contemporary) compellingly supports this view. Our focus is on the reviewer’s argument in the second sentence.

Notes might be structured as follows:

• R: "Music Trends Today" claims that modern songwriters are less musically proficient than their predecessors.
• R: The report supports this with a compelling analysis of 100 songs (50 past, 50 contemporary).
• [Assumptions: The 100 songs are representative of both eras; the author didn’t selectively choose exceptional past songs and mediocre contemporary ones; the analysis focuses solely on musical proficiency.]

Does the argument imply or assume anything else? For example, it might assume that the best songs from the past have survived, making it difficult to select poor examples for the "past songs" set, while contemporary songs might include a wider range of quality. Identifying such assumptions will help us spot the flaw.

Step 3: State the Objective

The goal is to find an answer choice that points out a flaw in the reviewer’s reasoning, likely by challenging an underlying assumption. The correct answer will negate or expose a weakness in one of these assumptions. For example, if the argument assumes that height makes someone a great basketball player, the flaw might be: Not all tall people are great basketball players.

Common incorrect answer choices may introduce irrelevant distinctions or comparisons, such as focusing on an alternative plan or a detail not relevant to the argument’s conclusion.

Step 4: Proceed from Wrong to Right

(A) The songs chosen by the report’s author for analysis could be those that most support the report's thesis.
This aligns with one of the brainstormed assumptions: the argument assumes the selected songs are representative and not biased toward the report’s thesis. If the author cherry-picked songs to favor the claim (e.g., choosing only the best past songs and weaker contemporary ones), this would undermine the reviewer’s argument that the analysis of 100 songs supports the thesis. This is a strong candidate, but let’s evaluate the other options.

(B) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a song.
While true, this is irrelevant to the argument, which focuses specifically on musical proficiency. This option introduces an alternative evaluation criterion, which doesn’t address the reasoning about the songs’ selection or analysis. Eliminate B.

(C) The title of the report could cause readers to accept the report’s thesis even before they read the analysis of the songs that supports it.
This addresses a potential issue with the report’s title influencing readers, but the question asks for a flaw in the reviewer’s reasoning, not the readers’ perception. Eliminate C.

(D) The particular methods currently used by songwriters in this region could require less musical skill than do methods used by songwriters in other parts of the world.
This introduces an irrelevant comparison to songwriters in other regions, which is outside the scope of the argument. The argument compares modern songwriters to their predecessors, not to songwriters elsewhere. Eliminate D.

(E) A reader who was not familiar with the language of music criticism might not be convinced by the report’s analysis of the 100 songs.
Like option C, this focuses on the readers’ understanding, not the reviewer’s reasoning. The correct answer must expose a flaw in the reviewer’s argument. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is A.

Q2: Health Consultant: A survey in our city shows that people who regularly eat at fast-food restaurants are three times more likely to develop heart disease than those who rarely eat fast food. This strongly suggests that eating at fast-food restaurants is a major cause of heart disease.
Which of the following is a major flaw in the health consultant's argument?
(A) The argument assumes that the correlation between eating at fast-food restaurants and heart disease implies causation.
(B) The argument does not consider the possible genetic factors that might contribute to heart disease.
(C) The health consultant overlooks the role of other dietary habits that may contribute to heart disease.
(D) The argument assumes that all fast-food restaurants offer the same type of food.
(E) The health consultant does not consider the effectiveness of medical treatments for heart disease.
Ans: (A)
The health consultant draws a conclusion about causation (eating at fast-food restaurants causes heart disease) based solely on a correlation observed in the survey (people who regularly eat at fast-food restaurants are more likely to develop heart disease). However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. There could be other factors contributing to heart disease in these individuals, such as overall diet, lifestyle, or genetic predispositions, which are not accounted for in the argument. This leap from correlation to causation without considering other potential factors is a major flaw in the argument.