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.

# Critical Reasoning: Argument Flaw Questions

Chef Alphonse performed a culinary experiment by mixing sauce C with sauce D to produce a surprisingly satisfactory gravy. He then mixed sauce D with sauce E, also producing a tasty result. It can be concluded that based upon his previous experiments, if Chef Alphonse were to mix sauce C with sauce E, he would end up with yet another winning combination.

A major flaw in the argument above is that

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

Although it can be said that the more something is tested, the more it can be trusted as true, the experiments and their results are presented as premises. Therefore, they must be accepted as true anyway. Besides, there is no rule that states that a conclusion cannot be logically drawn if it is based on experiments that were only executed once.

There is an answer choice which points out a much more elementary flaw in the argument. Look for it!

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

Actually, the argument does not contain any comparisons at all. There are no appearances of the word like, as, more, or less.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

The third experiment mentioned in the conclusion does not have similar conditions to those that were performed before since it introduces a third, completely new, combination of sauces. Also, basing a conclusion on similar events that had similar conditions can be very logical. For example:

Yesterday, it snowed heavily so many people stayed indoors. Therefore, because today it is also snowing heavily, many people will likely stay indoors again.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice does not accurately define the argument's flaw. Basing a conclusion on events that happened in the past can be very logical. For example:

Yesterday, it snowed heavily so many people stayed indoors. Therefore, because today it is also snowing heavily, many people will likely stay indoors again.

Superb!

[[snippet]]

A successful combination, or synthesis, of two elements cannot be guaranteed based on the previous successes other combinations in which these elements were involved. For example, a certain sweater may go well with a pair of jeans. Those jeans might suit a style of mustache. This does not mean that the mustache suits the sweater.

it draws a conclusion based on experiments that were executed only once, not allowing the verification of the accuracy of their result
it forms a comparison between the combination of two entities and the quality of a single entity
it predicts the outcome of an untested synthesis of two elements based on the successes of each element in other syntheses
it demands the assumption that a similar result can be achieved if similar conditions are met
a prediction is formed, substantiated only by events that happened in the past