GRE Analytical Writing Premises Conclusions Arguments

1. Which of the following best defines a premise in an argument?

A statement assumed to be true that supports the conclusion

The final claim an author wants the reader to accept

An example used to illustrate a point

A counterargument presented for rebuttal

A premise in an argument serves as a foundational statement that is accepted as true. It provides the necessary support for the conclusion, helping to establish the argument's validity. Without premises, conclusions lack the backing needed to persuade or convince the audience effectively.

Explanation

A premise in an argument serves as a foundational statement that is accepted as true. It provides the necessary support for the conclusion, helping to establish the argument's validity. Without premises, conclusions lack the backing needed to persuade or convince the audience effectively.

2. In the argument 'All mammals breathe air. Whales are mammals. Therefore, whales breathe air,' the conclusion is:

All mammals breathe air

Whales are mammals

Whales breathe air

Some mammals breathe air

The argument follows a logical structure known as syllogism, where the premises lead to a definitive conclusion. Since all mammals breathe air and whales are classified as mammals, it logically follows that whales must also breathe air, making "Whales breathe air" the conclusion derived from the premises.

Explanation

The argument follows a logical structure known as syllogism, where the premises lead to a definitive conclusion. Since all mammals breathe air and whales are classified as mammals, it logically follows that whales must also breathe air, making "Whales breathe air" the conclusion derived from the premises.

3. An unstated assumption that an argument depends on is called a(n) ____.

An implicit assumption is an underlying belief or premise that is not explicitly stated but is necessary for the argument to hold true. It serves as a foundation for the reasoning presented, influencing the conclusion without being directly acknowledged. Recognizing these assumptions is crucial for evaluating the strength and validity of an argument.

Explanation

An implicit assumption is an underlying belief or premise that is not explicitly stated but is necessary for the argument to hold true. It serves as a foundation for the reasoning presented, influencing the conclusion without being directly acknowledged. Recognizing these assumptions is crucial for evaluating the strength and validity of an argument.

Submit

4. Which logical flaw occurs when an argument assumes its conclusion is true without proving it?

Circular reasoning

False analogy

Ad hominem

Straw man

Circular reasoning is a logical flaw where the argument's conclusion is assumed to be true within its premises. This creates a loop where no external evidence or reasoning is provided to support the claim, leading to a lack of genuine justification for the argument being made.

Explanation

Circular reasoning is a logical flaw where the argument's conclusion is assumed to be true within its premises. This creates a loop where no external evidence or reasoning is provided to support the claim, leading to a lack of genuine justification for the argument being made.

5. A weak argument typically has:

Premises that do not adequately support the conclusion

Multiple conclusions

Clear, logical steps

Relevant evidence

A weak argument lacks strong premises, meaning the reasons provided do not convincingly lead to the conclusion. This results in a failure to establish a logical connection, making the argument less persuasive and undermining its overall validity. Without adequate support, the conclusions drawn may be questionable or unfounded.

Explanation

A weak argument lacks strong premises, meaning the reasons provided do not convincingly lead to the conclusion. This results in a failure to establish a logical connection, making the argument less persuasive and undermining its overall validity. Without adequate support, the conclusions drawn may be questionable or unfounded.

6. When an author attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, this is called a(n) ____ fallacy.

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. This tactic distracts from the actual issues at hand and undermines rational debate.

Explanation

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. This tactic distracts from the actual issues at hand and undermines rational debate.

Submit

7. Which statement best describes the relationship between premises and conclusions?

Premises are evidence that logically supports a conclusion

Conclusions must always be facts

Premises are always stronger than conclusions

They are interchangeable terms

Premises provide the foundational evidence or reasons that lead to a conclusion. They establish the basis for an argument, while a conclusion is the outcome or assertion derived from those premises. This relationship highlights the logical structure of reasoning, where premises bolster the validity of the conclusion drawn from them.

Explanation

Premises provide the foundational evidence or reasons that lead to a conclusion. They establish the basis for an argument, while a conclusion is the outcome or assertion derived from those premises. This relationship highlights the logical structure of reasoning, where premises bolster the validity of the conclusion drawn from them.

8. An argument commits a false analogy when it:

Compares two things that lack sufficient similarity

Presents only one side of an issue

Uses statistical data

Includes multiple premises

A false analogy occurs when an argument draws a comparison between two subjects that do not share enough relevant similarities, leading to misleading conclusions. This type of reasoning fails to establish a valid connection, making the argument weak and unconvincing. Effective comparisons must be based on significant and relevant similarities to be valid.

Explanation

A false analogy occurs when an argument draws a comparison between two subjects that do not share enough relevant similarities, leading to misleading conclusions. This type of reasoning fails to establish a valid connection, making the argument weak and unconvincing. Effective comparisons must be based on significant and relevant similarities to be valid.

9. In evaluating arguments, identifying the author's ____ is essential to understanding what the argument is trying to prove.

Identifying the author's conclusion is crucial because it represents the main point or claim that the argument seeks to establish. Understanding the conclusion allows readers to grasp the overall intent of the argument and evaluate the supporting evidence and reasoning effectively. This clarity is vital for assessing the argument's strength and validity.

Explanation

Identifying the author's conclusion is crucial because it represents the main point or claim that the argument seeks to establish. Understanding the conclusion allows readers to grasp the overall intent of the argument and evaluate the supporting evidence and reasoning effectively. This clarity is vital for assessing the argument's strength and validity.

Submit

10. Which of these is a valid deductive argument structure?

All A are B. All B are C. Therefore, all A are C.

Most A are B. X is B. Therefore, X is A.

Some A are B. Some B are C. Therefore, some A are C.

If A then B. B is true. Therefore, A is true.

This argument follows the classic syllogistic form known as a transitive relation. If all members of set A are included in set B, and all members of set B are included in set C, it logically follows that all members of set A must also be included in set C, demonstrating a valid deductive reasoning structure.

Explanation

This argument follows the classic syllogistic form known as a transitive relation. If all members of set A are included in set B, and all members of set B are included in set C, it logically follows that all members of set A must also be included in set C, demonstrating a valid deductive reasoning structure.

11. An argument's premises are sufficient when they:

Provide enough support for the conclusion to be reasonable

Are written in clear language

Include statistical data

Agree with expert opinion

Premises are considered sufficient when they offer adequate evidence or reasoning that makes the conclusion logically acceptable. This means that, based on the premises presented, one can reasonably infer or deduce the conclusion without requiring additional information or support.

Explanation

Premises are considered sufficient when they offer adequate evidence or reasoning that makes the conclusion logically acceptable. This means that, based on the premises presented, one can reasonably infer or deduce the conclusion without requiring additional information or support.

12. The logical error of oversimplifying complex issues into two extreme positions is called a(n) ____ dilemma.

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents a situation as having only two opposing options, ignoring other viable alternatives. This oversimplification can mislead individuals into making decisions based on limited perspectives, ultimately distorting the complexity of the issue at hand. It restricts critical thinking by framing choices too narrowly.

Explanation

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents a situation as having only two opposing options, ignoring other viable alternatives. This oversimplification can mislead individuals into making decisions based on limited perspectives, ultimately distorting the complexity of the issue at hand. It restricts critical thinking by framing choices too narrowly.

Submit