Fallacies AWA Argument

1. The Member vs. Group Fallacy: It is pretty unrealistic to describe a group and then expect
that every single member fulfills that characteristic. You can remember this fallacy by
thinking about stereotypes. We generally think of stereotypes as harmful because they
unfairly limit a certain group to one definable characteristic that is often founded on little to
no evidence. In order to avoid the member-group fallacy, the argument should clearly state
that a member is a representative of the group as a whole; most of the time, however, it
wont.
2. The Necessary Condition Assumption: The speaker of an argument may assume that a
certain course of action is necessary or sufficient to achieve a result. The necessary line of
reasoning is particularly weak if the speaker does not provide evidence that no other means
of achieving the same result is possible. For example, a superintendent of a school argues
that adopting a certain marketedreading program is necessaryi.e. the only meansto
increase reading skills of students.

The sufficient line of reasoning is weak if the speaker fails to provide evidence that the
proposed course of action would be sufficient to bring about the desired result by itself. In
the above example, the superintendent may not have shown that the reading program by
itself is enough to raise reading levels. There are other factors involved in this proposed
outcome: preparedness of teachers and attentiveness of students.

3. Weak Analogies: The speaker may come to a conclusion about one thing on the basis of
another thing. For example, if the manager of a business, say a trading card shop, may find
that a big competitor in a different city has increased sales by moving from a downtown
location to a suburban one. The argument may seem sound, but we cant completely
analogize these different trading-card shops. First of all, the demographics in their
respective cities may respond to different incentives. Maybe that particular citys downtown
district was already on the rise, and the relocation merely reaped the benefits? Without this
thorough background info, we cant make this analogy.
4. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: This fallacy, more lovingly known as the post hoc
fallacy, may be one of the most common youll encounter when examining the pool of
arguments, so its essential that you master it. There are two basic ways a fallacious cause-
and-effect claim can be made. First, the speaker may claim that a correlation suggests
causation; just because two phenomena often occur together, it doesnt mean that one event
causes the other. Second, the speaker may claim that a temporal relationship suggests
causation; by the same logic, just because one event happens after another, it doesnt mean
that event caused the other to occur.
A speaker may often use correlation to simply causation when a lurking variable is present.
Take this argument for example: As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths
increases, so ice cream causes drowning. This one may take some head-scratching to realize
that ice cream is more popular in the summer months, when water activities are also more
popular.

5. Inappropriate Statistics: You will often find that these arguments cite statistical evidence
to bolster their claims. As you may find out, simply citing evidence does not prove a claim
since the statistics may be faulty, unrepresentative, or inapplicable. The speaker may often
cite a statistic that polled a sample group in order to draw a conclusion about a larger group
represented by the sample. This is where problems can arise. For a sample to adequately
represent a larger population, it must be of significant size and characteristically
representative of the population. For example, a speaker may try to make a broad claim
about graduate schools impracticality by citing statistics from one particular university, e.g.
80 percent of University X undergrads were employed within one year of graduating, while
only 50 percent of the graduate students of the same university were employed after one
year. The statistics of one university simply cannot account for a sweeping claim about
graduate education. To really identify the source of the employment disparity, wed have to
compare the admission standards for undergrads and grad students, examine the economy
of the surrounding area, compare the types of jobs sought by undergrads and grads, and
show the distribution of majors among grads and undergrads.
6. Biased or Tainted Data: Tainted data is the second problem that could arise with data
samples. For data to be considered legitimate it has to be collected in an unbiased, fair, and
scientific manner, otherwise the quality of the data is compromised. For example, if there is
reason to believe that survey responses are dishonest, the results may be unreliable.
Further, the results may be unreliable if the method for collecting the data is biased, e.g. if
the survey is designed, consciously or unconsciously, to yield certain responses. To spot
tainted data, make sure that if a survey should be conducted anonymouslylike in the
workplacethen it is indicated. Also, watch out for surveys that try to manipulate responses
by providing narrow options. For example, a survey asking the question What is your
favorite ice cream flavor? should have more options than simply coconut and mint;
from those findings, we might fallaciously conclude that 78% of people identify mint as
their favorite ice cream flavor.
Logistics of the Arguments Section

You must be prepared to handle both reasonable arguments (when the

conclusion is likely) and false arguments (when the conclusion is improbable).

Each classification of inductive reasoning carries its own associated fallacies.

Evaluation of an ArgumentTo find errors in Arguments

(1) If-Then Statements - Most arguments are based on some variation of an if-
then statement, which may be either directly stated or embedded. Understanding
the if-then premise reveals the underlying simplicity of arguments.If the premise
of an if-then statement is true, then the conclusion must be true as well.

If A, then B

While three possible statements can be derived from the implication "if A, then
B", only one is valid.

The statement that is logically equivalent to "if A, then B" is called the
contrapositive. It is stated as:

If not B, then not A

Let's explore why this is true.

"If there is a hurricane, then Samantha will cry"

There are four different hypothetical possibilities to consider when

making deductions based on this statement:

1) A hurricane occurs
2) A hurricane does not occur
3) Samantha cries
4) Samantha does not cry

Let's consider each individually:

1. If a hurricane occurs.
You know that if this is true, the result will be that Samantha will cry.

2. If a hurricane does not occur.

If a hurricane does not occur, you can deduce nothing about Samantha. In
particular, you cannot deduce that she does not cry. There are many other
reasons why Samantha could cry, besides a hurricane (fight with her mom, she
sees a sad movie, she gets sick).

3. If Samantha cries.

Again, you can't deduce anything about the occurence of a hurricane if

Samantha cries. The if-then statement doesn't assert that Samantha cries only if
a hurricane occurs, just that if it does, Samantha will cry. Samantha can cry
even on clear, sunny days.

4. If Samantha does not cry.

If Samantha does not cry, you can deduce that a hurricane did not occur. Why? If
it had occurred, then Samantha would definitely have cried. Yet she didn't. So,
we know that, given Samantha's disposition, a hurricane did not occur.

To review, any time you see a statement in the form of "If A, then B", contrapose
the statement into "If not B, then not A".

You know only two things:

a) what will happen if X occurs

b) what will happen if Y does not occur.

Those are the only valid deductions that you can make based on that original
statement.

You can only assume two things about the implication

"if A, then B":

1) If A is true, then B must be true.

2) If B is false, then A must be false.

(2) Embedded If-Then Statements - If-then statements are frequently embedded in

other structures, making theirdetection more difficult.

Example: (Embedded If-then)

Jamie and Kyle cannot both go to the mall.

At first glance, this sentence does not appear to contain an if-then statement. But it
essentially says:"if Jamie goes to the mall, then Kyle does not."The
contrapositive ("if Kyle goes to the mall, then Jamie does not") correctly
expresses the same thing.

Example: (Embedded If-then)

Heather will go to Europe only if she gets a raise at work.

Given this statement, we know that if Heather goes to Europe, she must have
gotten a raise at work.Students often wrongly interpret this statement to
mean:"If Heather gets a raise at work, then she will go to Europe."We have no
guarantee of this. The only guarantee is that if Heather doesn't get the raise, she
will not go to Europe."A only if B" is logically equivalent to "if A, then B"

(3) Circular Reasoning - Here an unsubstantiated assertion is used to justify

another unsubstantiated assertion,which is,or atleast could be ,used to justify
the first statement.

For instance - Full scholarships are appropriate for disadantaged scholars

because it is right to offer a top-notch education to those most capable.This
argument is circular because "right" means essentially the same thing as
"appropriate." In effect, the author writer is saying that scholarships are
appropriate because they are appropriate.

(4) The Biased Sample Fallacy - This is commited whenever the data for a
statistical inference is drawn from a sample that is not representative of the
population under consideration.

For example:

In a recent survey conducted by The Times of India of its readers,60% of the

respondents indicated strong support to Lalu Prasad Yadav.Hence the survey
clearly shows that Lalu yadav is the most popular leader among the masses.

The data for the inference in this argument is drawn from a sample that is not
reprentative of the entire electorate.

(6) The Insufficient Sample Fallacy - The Fallacy of the Insufficient Sample is
committed whenever an inadequate sample is used to justify the conclusion
drawn.

Here's an argument that commits the fallacy of the insufficient sample:

I have worked with three people from Bangalore City and found them to be
obnoxious, pushy and rude. It is obvious that people from Bangalore City have a
bad attitude.
The data for the inference in this argument is insufficient to support the
conclusion. Three observations of people are not sufficient to support a
conclusion for whole city population..

(4) Ad hominem - One of the most often employed fallacies, ad hominen means "to
the man" and indicates an attack that is made upon a person rather than upon
the statements that person has made.

An example is

"Don't listen to my opponent; he's handicapped."

(7) The Fallacy of Faulty Analogy - Reasoning by analogy functions by

comparing two similar things. Because they are alike in various ways, the
fallacy is that it is likely they will share another trait as well. Faulty Analogy
arguments draw similarities between the things compared that are not relevant
to the characteristic being inferred in the conclusion.

Here's an example of a Faulty Analogy fallacy:

Ram and Shyam excel at both football and basketball. Since Ram is also a singer,
it is likely that Shyam also excels at singing.

In this example, numerous similarities between Ram and Shyam are taken as the
basis for the inference that they share additional traits.

(8) Straw Man - Here the speaker attributes an argument to an opponent that
does not represent the opponent's true position.

For instance - a political candidate might charge that his opponent "wants to let
all prisoners go free," when in fact his opponent simply favors a highly limited
furlough system. The person is portrayed as someone that he is not.

(9) The "After This, Therefore, Because of This" - Fallacy (Post hoc ergo propter
hoc) This is a "false cause" fallacy in which something is associated with
something else because of mere proximity of time.

One often encounters people assuming that because one thing happened after
another, the first caused it, as with "I stood up; Sachin got out. My standing up
resulted in a loss of wicket." The error in arguments that commit this fallacy is
that their conclusions are causal claims that are not sufficiently substantiated by
the evidence.

Here are an example of the After This, Therefore Because of This Fallacy:
Ten minutes after walking into the auditorium, I began to feel sick to my
stomach. There must have been something in the air in that building that caused
my nausea.

In the given example, a causal connection is posited between two events simply
on the basis of one occurring before the other. Without further evidence to
support it, the causal claim based on the correlation is premature.

(10) The Either or Thinking - This is the so-called black or white fallacy.
Essentially, it says "Either you believe what I'm saying, or you must believe
exactly the opposite."

Here is an example of the black or white fallacy:

Since you don't believe that the earth is teetering on the edge of destruction, you
must believe that pollution and other adverse effects that man has on the
environment are of no concern whatsoever.

The argument above assumes that there are only two possible alternatives open
to us. There is no room for a middle ground.

(11) The "All Things are Equal" Fallacy - This fallacy is committed when it is
assumed, without justification, that background conditions have remained the
same at different times/locations. In most instances, this is an unwarranted
assumption for the simple reason that things rarely remain the same over
extended periods of time, and things rarely remain the same from place to place.

The last time winner of south delhi constituency won the general election. This
year, the winner of the south delhi constituency will win the general election.

The assumption operative in this argument is that nothing has changed since the
last primary. No evidence or justification is offered for this assumption.

(12) The Fallacy of Equivocation - The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when a

word or phrase that has more than one meaning is employed in different
meanings throughout the argument.

"Every society is, of course, repressive to some extent - as Sigmund Freud pointed
out, repression is the price we pay for civilization."

In this example, the word repression is used in two completely different contexts.
"Repression" in Freud's mind meant restricting sexual and psychological desires.
"Repression" in the second context does not mean repression of individual
desires, but government restriction of individual liberties, such as that in a
totalitarian state.

(13) Non Sequitor - This means "does not follow," which is short for the
conclusion does not follow from the premise.

To say, "The house is white; therefore, it must be big" is an example of the Non
Sequitor fallacy. It may be a big house, but there is no intrinsic connection with
its being white.

(14) Argument ad populum - A group of children are playing, trying to determine

no of balls in an opaque box.

"I wonder if there are less than 4 or more than 4 balls in the box," says one
student. "I know how we can tell!" pipes up another. "All right, how?" asks the
teacher, resigned to the worst. Beams the child: "We can vote."

This is argumentum ad populum, the belief that truth can be determined by more
or less putting it to a vote. Democracy is a very nice thing, but it doesn't
determine truth. Polls are good for telling you what people think, not whether
those thoughts are correct.

(15) Contradiction - Contradiction occurs when a writer asserts two opposing

statements simultaneously.

For example, saying

"it is wet and it is dry" is a contradiction.

Typical arguments on the test obscure the contradiction to the point that the
argument can be quite compelling.

Here's a great example:

We cannot know anyone, because we intuitively realize that people are

unreliable.

At first glance this argument sounds reasonable, but "intuitively realize" means
"to know." Thus the author is actually saying that we know that we don't know
anyone. This is classic contradiction.

The Usual Suspects: Common Logical Fallacies

We have identified seven logical errors that appear commonly in the essay questions. When writing your
essay argument you should explicitly identify the logical flaw. These flaws also tend to occur in the critical
reasoning section of the Verbal GMAT, so your preparation here will benefit you when taking the Verbal
section.

The E-rater will look for how well you express that you have identified the logical reasoning flaws. When
you find an error, specifically identify it in the essay "this is a biased-sample fallacy." The E-rater will
detect that you have identified the argument's flaw and will favor your essay.

1. Circular Reasoning

Here, an unsubstantiated assertion is used to justify another unsubstantiated assertion, which is, or at
least could be, used to justify the first statement. For instance, Joe and Fred show up at an exclusive
club. When asked if they are members, Joe says "I'll vouch for Fred." When Joe is asked for evidence
that he's a member, Fred says, "I'll vouch for him."

2. The Biased-Sample Fallacy

The Fallacy of the Biased Sample is committed whenever the data for a statistical inference are drawn
from a sample that is not representative of the population under consideration. The data drawn and used
to make a generalization is drawn from a group that does not represent the whole.

Here is an argument that commits the fallacy of the biased sample:

ln a recent survey conducted by Wall Street Weekly, 80% of the respondents indicated their strong
disapproval of increased capital gains taxes. This survey clearly shows that increased capital gains taxes
will meet with strong opposition from the electorate.

The data for the inference in this argument are drawn from a sample that is not representative of the
entire electorate. Since the survey was conducted of people whoinvest, not all members of the electorate
have an equal chance of being included in the sample. Moreover, persons who read about investing are
more likely to have an opinion on the topic of taxes on investment different from the population at large.

3. The Insufficient Sample Fallacy

The Fallacy of the Insufficient Sample is committed whenever an inadequate sample is used to justify
the conclusion drawn.

Here's an argument that commits the fallacy of the insufficient sample:

I have worked with 3 people from New York City and found them to be obnoxious, pushy and rude. It is
obvious that people from New York City have a bad attitude.

The data for the inference in this argument are insufficient to support the conclusion. Three observations
of people are not sufficient to support a conclusion about 10 million.

4. Ad hominen
 One of the most often-employed fallacies, ad hominen means "to the man" and indicates an attack that
is made upon a person rather than upon the statements that person has made. An example is: "Don't
listen to my opponent, he's a homosexual."

5. The Fallacy of Faulty Analogy

Reasoning by analogy functions by comparing two similar things. Because they are alike in various
ways, the fallacy is that it is likely they will share another trait as well. Faulty Analogy arguments draw
similarities between the things compared that are not relevant to the characteristic being inferred in the
conclusion.

Here's an example of a Faulty Analogy fallacy:

Ted and Jim excel at both football and basketball. Since Ted is also a track star, it is likely that Jim also
excels at track.

In this example, numerous similarities between Ted and Jim are taken as the basis for the inference that
they share additional traits.

6. Straw Man

Here the speaker attributes an argument to an opponent that does not represent the opponent's true
position. For instance, a political candidate might charge that his opponent "wants to let all prisoners go
free," when in fact his opponent simply favors a highly limited furlough system. The person is portrayed as
someone that they are not.

7. The "After This, Therefore, Because of This" Fallacy (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)

This is a "false cause" fallacy in which something is associated with something else because of mere
proximity of time. One often encounters - in news stories- people assuming that because one thing
happened after another, the first caused it, as with "I touched a toad, I have a wart, the toad caused the
wart." The error in arguments that commit this fallacy is that their conclusions are causal claims that are
not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence.

Here are two examples of the After This, Therefore Because of This Fallacy:

Ten minutes after walking into the auditorium, I began to feel sick to my stomach. There must have been
something in the air in that building that caused my nausea.

The stock market declined shortly after the election of the president, thus indicating the lack of confidence
the business community has in the new administration.

In the first example, a causal connection is posited between two events simply on the basis of one
occurring before the other. Without further evidence to support it, the causal claim based on the
correlation is premature.
 The second example is typical of modern news reporting. The only evidence offered in this argument
to support the implicit causal claim that the decline in the stock market was caused by the election of the
president is the fact that election preceded the decline. While this may have been a causal factor in the
decline of the stock market, to argue that it is the cause without additional information and auxiliary
hypotheses that make a causal connection plausible is to commit the After This, Therefore, Because of
This Fallacy.

8. The Either-or Thinking

This is the so-called black-or-white fallacy. Essentially, it says "Either you believe what I'm saying or
you must believe exactly the opposite." Here is an example of the black-or-white fallacy:

Since you don't believe that the earth is teetering on the edge of destruction, you must believe that
pollution and other adverse effects that man has on the environment are of no concern whatsoever.

The argument above assumes that there are only two possible alternatives open to us. There is no room
for a middle ground.

9. The "All Things are Equal" Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when it is assumed, without justification, that background conditions have
remained the same at different times/locations. In most instances, this is an unwarranted assumption for
the simple reason that things rarely remain the same over extended periods of time, and things rarely
remain the same from place to place.

The last Democrat winner of the New Hampshire primary won the general election. This year, the winner
of the New Hampshire primary will win the general election.

The assumption operative in this argument is that nothing has changed since the last primary. No
evidence or justification is offered for this assumption.

10. The Fallacy of Equivocation

The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase that has more than one meaning is
employed in different meanings throughout the argument.

"Every society is, of course, repressive to some extent - as Sigmund Freud pointed out, repression is
the price we pay for civilization." (John P. Roche- political columnist)

In this example, the word repression is used in two completely different contexts. "Repression" in Freud's
mind meant restricting sexual and psychological desires. "Repression" in the second context does not
mean repression of individual desires, but government restriction of individual liberties, such as that in a
totalitarian state.

11. Non Sequitur

 This means "does not follow," which is short for: the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To
say, "The house is white; therefore it must be big" is an example. It may be a big house but there is no
intrinsic connection with its being white.

12. Argument ad populum

A group of kindergartners are studying a frog, trying to determine its sex. "I wonder if it's a boy frog or
a girl frog," says one student. "I know how we can tell!" pipes up another. "All right, how?" asks the
teacher, resigned to the worst. Beams the child: "We can vote."

This is argumentum ad populum, the belief that truth can be determined by more or less putting it to a
vote. Democracy is a very nice thing, but it doesn't determine truth. Polls are good for telling you what
people think, not whether those thoughts are correct.

Common Student Errors

We've graded essays from thousands of students and we see recurring errors time and time again. The
most common error on the Analysis of Argument essay is"Splitting Hairs."

Splitting Hairs refers to trying to dissect errors that do no fall into the categories listed here. Remember
that all questions have SERIOUS errors. The danger is that you could get distracted on a minor issue
and miss the serious errors that the E-rater and the grader want to see.

here is an example:
A company is cutting unneeded employees to cut costs and boost profitability. Is this a wise strategy?

splitting hairs: What if the employees refuse to go? What if the employees are actually volunteers? What
if the employees are the company's biggest customers? etc..

Ten Most Common Errors

We've graded thousands of essays and some errors tend to recur.

10. The "kitchen sink" argument

This argument throws in everything and discusses every topic an issue in one paragraphs. Paragraphs
are discrete units meant for discussing a limited range of ideas. Narrow the scope of your paragraphs
and arguments into manageable units. On a larger level, limit the scope of your essays. On issue
questions, this is not an opportunity to expound on your entire worldview.

9. The "Microsoft Example"

Try to use interesting examples other than the usual Microsoft example. Too many writers use microsoft
and it gets tedious to graders and is trite. Another is the "U.S. has low unemployment" example for
macroeconomic policy. Be more creative. Essay graders have boring jobs and appreciate new twists.
8. Use casual language "really" "like" "u" "r"
Don't write as if you are sending an email or use casual phrases.

7. Did not leave time to proofread at the end.

Always leave a few minutes to re-read your essay for typos and errors at the end.

6. Attacking the Analysis of Issue as an Analysis of Argument.

As you'll read in the Guide, they require entirely different approaches.

5. The Rambler
Write in a concise manner that summarzies your points and provides good examples. A paragraph with
12 sentences is too long.

4. Introduce new arguments or arguments in the conclusion

The introduction and conclusion are for summarzing your argument, not for bringing in examples. The
body paragraphs should be full of compelling examples. Studentscommonly introduce new arguments in
the conclusion when the conclusion should be used for restating your arguments. State your argument in
a new body essay.

Three way tie for #1 Most Common Error

1. The Weak Conclusion

The conclusion should wrap up your argument. Writing the AWA essay is like running a mile race. You
can't sprint a mile, you have to pace yourself or you'll pass out at the end. AWA writers "pass out" at the
end and paste on a conclusion that is one sentence long. The conclusion must summarize your points
effectively and restate your argument well.

1. Leaves You in Suspense.

The intro describes the writer's opinion but doesn't lay out a structure for the argument. They state their
opinion, but don't say why. Use the intro to distill your arguments into three concise sentences. One trick
to solve this is to write the introduction at the end.

1. Oops! Forgot the Example

Your body paragraphs must be anchored in compelling examples. Provide clever examples for your
points to illustrate them.

TEMPLATE

Is the essay section so easy that you can simply plug in phrases into a pre-prepared template format?

No.

Instead, we have opted to give you a variety of options about how to organize and structure your
essays.
 As with the Issue essay, there is no single "correct," way to organize an Argument essay. In our view,
however, your essay should include separate "introduction" and "conclusion" paragraphs, as well as at
least two "body" paragraphs in which you develop your critique of the stated argument. The following
template spells out this structure in more detail, and each of the sample Analysis of Argument essays in
this book follow this basic pattern.

You do not have to adhere strictly to this format in order to write an effective Argument essay. You
may find that some other form works better for you, especially for the body of your essay. Also, the
numbers of sentences indicated for each paragraph here are merely suggestions or guidelines, not hard-
and-fast rules.

(Note: The transitional phrases used here are purposely simplistic; do not simply "parrot" them word-
for-word in your essay or adopt a mechanistic fill-in the blankapproach. If you do, your essay might
appear stilted or contrived.)

Introductory Paragraph (2-4 sentences)

Try to accomplish three goals in your introductory paragraph:

Briefly restate the argument.

Briefly trace the argument's line of reasoning.
Indicate the extent to which the argument is logically convincing.
If possible, sum up your arguments in one sentence (or two brief sentences).

Here's a sample template for the first paragraph that accomplishes these goals:

The author concludes that____________, because ________. The author's line of reasoning is that
______________. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons; it is____________ and it
uses _____________.

First Body Paragraph (3-5 sentences)

In the first body paragraph your goal is to critique one of the following:

The reasoning of the argument

One of the premises of the argument
One of the assumptions of the argument

Here's a sample template for this paragraph that accomplishes this goal:

First of all, ____________________________ is based upon the questionable assumption

________________________________. That _______________,
however, _________________. Moreover, ________________________.

Second Body Paragraph (3-4 sentences)

The purpose of the second paragraph is to address one of the following:

The reasoning of the argument

One of the premises of the argument
One of the assumptions of the argument

Here's a sample template for this paragraph that accomplishes this goal:

Secondly, the author assumes that_________________________.

However, __________________________. It seems equally reasonable to assume that
____________________.

Third (and optional Fourth) Body Paragraph

In this paragraph your goal is to critique one of the following:

The reasoning of the argument

One of the premises of the argument
One of the assumptions of the argument

Here's a sample template for this paragraph that accomplishes this goal:

Finally, _______________________________________. The author fails to consider

__________________________________. For example, __________________. Because the author's
argument _________________.

Final Paragraph (2-3 sentences)

In the final paragraph your goals are to:

Summarize your critique of the argument

State the main point of your essay

The final paragraph is not the placer to introduce new arguments or issues. Sample template:

In sum, I agree that______________________. However, ____________________; on balance,

_____________________.