GMAT Verbal 21: Flaw Questions — The Classic Reasoning Errors

O'qish Critical Reasoning: boshqa savol turlari 2-dars, jami 7

Shu mavzudagi darslar · 2/7

GMAT Verbal 20: Evaluate the Argument — The Question That Would Decide It
GMAT Verbal 21: Flaw Questions — The Classic Reasoning Errors
3 GMAT Verbal 22: Inference — What Must Be True
4 GMAT Verbal 23: Explain the Discrepancy — Resolving a Paradox
5 GMAT Verbal 24: Role and Boldface Questions
6 GMAT Verbal 25: Plans and Methods of Reasoning
7 GMAT Verbal 26: Critical Reasoning — Mixed Practice II

Argument qayerda xato qiladi?

Flaw savoli: «The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…». Bu yerda boʻshliqni faqat topish emas, uni abstrakt tilda nomlash kerak. Variantlar «It takes for granted that…», «It fails to consider…», «It treats … as …» kabi umumiy iboralar bilan yoziladi. Bir necha klassik xato qayta-qayta keladi — ularni tanib olsangiz, savol tez yechiladi.

⏱ Flaw — ~2 daqiqa

Beshta klassik xato

Bogʻliqlik → sabab. Ikki narsa birga uchraydi, demak biri ikkinchisini keltirib chiqaradi.

Foiz → son. «200% oʻsdi» — lekin boshlangʻich son kichik boʻlsa, natija ham kichik.

Zarur → yetarli. «Lavozim uchun X kerak; unda X bor — demak lavozimni oladi.» Zarur shart kafolat emas.

Vakil boʻlmagan namuna. Velosiped jurnali oʻquvchilari — butun aholi emas.

Shaxsga hujum. Fikrni emas, uni aytgan odamni tanqid qilish.

Ishlangan namuna

Sales of electric cars in Country P rose by 200 percent last year, while sales of petrol cars rose by only 5 percent. Clearly, more electric cars than petrol cars were sold in Country P last year.

Agar oʻtgan yili 1,000 ta elektromobil va 100,000 ta benzinli mashina sotilgan boʻlsa: elektromobillar 3,000 ga yetadi (+200%), benzinli mashinalar 105,000 ga (+5%). Foiz katta, son esa kichik. Xato — faqat foiz oʻzgarishidan sonlar haqida xulosa chiqarish.

💡 Maslahat: Avval xatoni oʻz soʻzingiz bilan ayting («foizdan son chiqardi»), keyin variantlarni abstrakt tildan oʻz tilingizga tarjima qilib solishtiring.

Cities with more coffee shops per resident have higher average incomes than cities with fewer. So opening more coffee shops would be a good way for a city to raise its residents' incomes.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

⏱ ~2 daqiqa

relies on a sample of cities that is too small to be meaningful attacks the people who hold a view rather than the view itself treats a necessary condition for higher incomes as a sufficient one assumes that what is true of a city as a whole is true of each resident takes for granted that because two things occur together, one of them causes the other

Sales of electric cars in Country P rose by 200 percent last year, while sales of petrol cars rose by only 5 percent. Clearly, more electric cars than petrol cars were sold in Country P last year.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

⏱ ~2 daqiqa

draws a conclusion about a country from a sample of only a few buyers assumes the very conclusion it sets out to prove rejects a claim because of who made it infers a conclusion about numbers of cars from information only about percentage changes takes for granted that rising sales of one product cause falling sales of another

To be promoted to senior analyst at the firm, an employee must have passed the CFA Level I exam. Aziz has passed the CFA Level I exam, so he will be promoted to senior analyst.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument?

⏱ ~2 daqiqa

It takes for granted that two things that occur together are causally related. It infers a number from a percentage. It relies on a source that may be biased. It generalises from one employee to all employees of the firm. It treats a requirement for promotion as though it guaranteed promotion.

An online poll on the website of a cycling magazine found that 78 percent of respondents support building more bike lanes. So most of the country's residents support building more bike lanes.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

⏱ ~2 daqiqa

treats a necessary condition as a sufficient one draws a conclusion about a whole population from a group that is unlikely to be typical of it takes for granted that bike lanes are inexpensive to build fails to state how many bike lanes the country already has confuses a percentage of respondents with a number of respondents

The consultant's report recommends closing the company's factory in Fergana. But the consultant has never run a factory herself, so the recommendation should be rejected.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it

⏱ ~2 daqiqa

assumes that two events that occur together are causally linked rejects a recommendation because of a fact about the person who made it rather than the reasons given for it takes for granted that the factory is profitable generalises from too few cases infers a number from a percentage

Tuzoqlar

⚠️ Tuzoq: Rost, lekin xato emas — «it fails to state how many bike lanes…» — argument haqiqatan aytmaydi, lekin bu uning xatosi emas. Flaw varianti argument qilgan notoʻgʻri qadamni nomlashi kerak. Boshqa xato — boshqa argumentga mos keladigan, bu yerda yoʻq xato.

📌 Eslatma: Abstrakt tildagi variantlarni oʻqishda bizdagi nomzodlar koʻp qiynaladi. Har birini argumentning oʻz soʻzlariga «qaytaring»: «a requirement» — CFA imtihoni, «guaranteed» — lavozimni olishi. Mos kelsa — toʻgʻri.