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: Recognize 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," signaling 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

Firstly, note that the argument is presented by the reviewer, and the task is to find a flaw in the reviewer’s reasoning.

The first sentence outlines the book’s claim: contemporary European painters are inferior to their predecessors. The reviewer aligns with this assertion, contending that the analysis of 100 paintings (50 old and 50 contemporary) convincingly supports this view. Our focus is on the reviewer’s argument in the second sentence.

Notes might be structured as follows:

R: "Art's Decline" posits that today's European painters are not as skilled as those in the past.
R: The book supports this with a convincing analysis of 100 paintings.
[Assumptions: The 100 paintings represent both eras adequately; the author didn’t selectively pick outstanding old paintings and mediocre contemporary ones, etc.]

Note that abbreviations are used for brevity, and assumptions are brainstormed for clarity.

Does the argument imply or assume anything else? A hypothetical scenario could be that only the absolute best paintings from 200 or 300 years ago have survived, making it impossible to select bad examples for the "old paintings" set. Such an assumption needs to be identified.

Step 3: State the Objective

The goal is to find an answer choice pointing out a flaw in the argument's reasoning, which can be seen as an underlying assumption. The correct answer will express the opposite of this assumption. For example, if assuming tall height makes someone a great basketball player, the flaw might be expressed as: Not everyone tall is necessarily a great basketball player. Alternatively, the flaw might state that someone tall can still not be a great basketball player.

A common pitfall is an irrelevant distinction or comparison. Incorrect answer choices may introduce alternate plans or paths when the task is to assess a specific plan from the argument. Alternatively, an incorrect choice might focus on a detail or distinction irrelevant to the conclusion.

Step 4: Proceed from Wrong to Right

(A) The paintings chosen by the book’s author for analysis could be those that most support the book’s thesis.
This aligns with one of the brainstormed assumptions: assuming the chosen paintings are fully representative and not selectively biased. If the book’s author specifically picked paintings favoring a preconceived thesis, it would constitute a major flaw in the reviewer’s argument that the 100 paintings validate the book author’s thesis. This seems promising, but let’s check the other options.

(B) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.
While true, this doesn’t address the argument's focus on the technical skill of European painters today and in the past. It falls into the irrelevant distinction or comparison trap. Eliminate B.

(C) The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book’s thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.
While a potential issue, the question specifically asks for a flaw in the reviewer’s reasoning, not the readers'. Eliminate C.
(D) The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.
This introduces an irrelevant distinction, as the argument solely compares contemporary European painters with their predecessors. Painters from other regions are not part of the argument. Eliminate D.
(E) A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book’s analysis of the 100 paintings.
Similar to answer C, this addresses a flaw in the reader's reasoning, not the reviewer’s. The correct answer should 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.