Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Argument Flaw Questions

Two foreign diplomats fell sick a few days after they had eaten a meal together at a well-known gourmet restaurant. It is clear that the food at the restaurant must have been the reason for their illness.

A major flaw in the argument above is that



The first sentence in the argument is a premise. Because a premise must always be regarded as true (or accurate), this answer choice cannot be correct.



In this case, there is no problem with basing the conclusion on a single case, because the conclusion relates to that specific case only and does not draw any generalizations (such as "the food in that restaurant will always get you sick").



In the case presented by the argument, the dinner is the cause and the sickness is the effect. This answer choice incorrectly claims that the effect (sickness) occured first, but that is not the case - the dinner preceded the sickness, so this part, at least, is logical.



The information is the argument's premise. A premise is factual and objective data. Therefore, it cannot be referred to as a personal account since this term implies a subjective point of view.



The diplomats ate, and then were sick. Besides the fact that one event happened after another, the argument does not really present any information that can prove that it was the restaurant's food that caused the illness. The author confused closeness in time with a cause-and-effect relationship.

the data provided is not completely accurate
a causal relationship has been assumed for events that simply followed one another in time
a conclusion is formed based on a case with very specific characteristics
it presents a cause-and-effect relationship, in which the effect precedes the cause
the information given is in the form of a personal account