7.3 Resolving Paradoxes, Explaining Anomalies & Logical Flaws
Key Takeaways
- Resolve Paradox questions require accepting both seemingly contradictory premises as true and identifying a third fact that reconciles them.
- A valid paradox resolution never refutes or undermines either stated premise in the passage.
- The correlation-causation fallacy falsely assumes that a temporal sequence or statistical association proves a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
- Circular reasoning occurs when an argument's premise restates its conclusion in different terminology without offering independent evidence.
- Equivocation fallacies rely on shifting the definition of a pivotal term across different parts of an argument.
7.3 Resolving Paradoxes, Explaining Anomalies & Logical Flaws
The final dimension of GRE argument analysis encompasses two distinct question tasks: Resolve the Paradox (or Explain an Anomaly) and Identify the Flaw. Both arrive as ordinary Reading Comprehension items attached to a short argument passage. Resolving a paradox requires uncovering a reconciling fact that harmonizes two contradictory premises. Identifying a flaw requires diagnosing why an argument's premises fail to prove its conclusion due to established logical fallacies.
Resolving Paradoxes & Explaining Anomalies
In Resolve Paradox questions, the passage presents two facts that appear mutually exclusive or contradictory on the surface. Unlike Strengthen or Weaken items, paradox passages usually contain no main conclusion—only two conflicting premises.
Core Rules for Paradox Resolution
- Accept Both Premises as True: Never choose an option that denies, disputes, or refutes either of the stated facts in the passage.
- Find the Reconciling Factor: The correct choice introduces a new, unstated background fact that allows Fact A and Fact B to co-exist logically.
- Avoid Out-of-Scope Distractors: Incorrect choices often explain one fact in isolation while ignoring the second fact entirely.
Paradox Resolution Walkthrough
Passage: Over the past two years, City Y implemented automated speed enforcement cameras along its primary traffic corridors. Traffic department statistics show that average vehicle speeds on these corridors decreased by 12 miles per hour. However, the total number of severe traffic accidents reported on these exact corridors increased by 20 percent over the same two-year period.
- Fact A: Average driving speeds decreased by 12 mph (suggesting safer driving conditions).
- Fact B: Severe traffic accidents increased by 20% on the same roads (suggesting dangerous conditions).
Goal: Find a fact that explains why lower speeds coincided with more severe accidents.
Evaluating Potential Resolvers:
- Incorrect Option: "Drivers in City Y frequently express frustration with automated traffic fines." (Explains feelings, fails to resolve accident increase).
- Incorrect Option: "Other cities without speed cameras saw a 5 percent increase in traffic accidents." (Irrelevant comparison city).
- Correct Resolving Option: "Installation of the speed cameras caused drivers to brake suddenly upon sighting camera gantries, leading to a surge in high-speed rear-end collisions." (Reconciles lower overall speeds with higher accident counts by explaining the specific mechanism linking cameras to crashes).
Classic Logical Flaws in GRE Argument Passages
Identify the Flaw questions ask you to describe the logical defect in an author's reasoning. Recognizing standard informal fallacies allows you to identify the correct abstract description quickly.
1. Correlation vs. Causation (Causal Fallacy)
Assuming that because event A occurs alongside or prior to event B, event A must be the cause of event B. This overlooks potential third variables (confounding factors) or reversed causality.
- Example: "Ice cream sales and drowning rates both peak in July; therefore, eating ice cream causes drowning."
2. Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Presupposing the truth of the conclusion within the premises. The author offers a restatement of the conclusion as evidence rather than providing independent proof.
- Example: "Our company's proprietary software is superior because no competitor produces software of comparable excellence."
3. False Dilemma (Black-or-White Fallacy)
Falsely assuming that only two mutually exclusive alternatives exist, ignoring viable intermediate positions or alternative solutions.
- Example: "We must either cut research and development spending by half immediately or face complete corporate bankruptcy by year-end."
4. Hasty Generalization (Unrepresentative Sample)
Drawing a broad, universal conclusion about an entire population based on an inadequate, small, or unrepresentative sample group.
- Example: "Two students in the pilot online calculus course received perfect scores; thus, online instruction is superior to traditional classroom learning for all mathematics students."
5. Equivocation (Semantic Ambiguity)
Exploiting multiple meanings of a key word or phrase, shifting the definition mid-argument to create a false logical connection.
- Example: "Public interest groups should govern media policy because the public has a keen interest in watching television." (Equivocating between "public interest" as societal benefit vs. "public interest" as curiosity/entertainment).
Comparative Matrix of Classic Fallacies
| Fallacy Name | Core Logical Error | Passage Red Flag | Correct Description Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causal Error | Mistakes temporal sequence for causal connection. | Passage links two co-occurring trends as cause/effect. | "Confuses a temporal sequence of events with a causal relationship." |
| Circular Logic | Assumes the truth of what it seeks to prove. | Premise merely restates the conclusion in different terms. | "Restates the conclusion as evidence in support of itself." |
| False Choice | Assumes only two extreme options exist. | Passage presents an "either A or B" ultimatum. | "Fails to consider alternative possibilities between two extremes." |
| Overgeneralization | Extrapolates from an isolated instance to all cases. | Small sample or single anecdote used for broad claim. | "Draws a general conclusion from an unrepresentative sample." |
| Equivocation | Shifts meaning of a pivotal term. | Same word used with two distinct definitions. | "Relies on an ambiguity in a key term throughout the argument." |
Step-by-Step Worked Flaw Breakdown
Passage: A museum curator argued: "Recent excavations at Site Z uncovered three clay vessels containing remnants of olive oil. Because these vessels were found near residential structures, we can conclude that the ancient inhabitants of Site Z relied on olive oil as their primary dietary staple."
Argument Breakdown
- Premise: 3 clay vessels with olive oil remnants found near residential structures at Site Z.
- Conclusion: Ancient inhabitants relied on olive oil as their primary dietary staple.
Flaw Diagnosis
- Sample Size Flaw: Inferring dietary dominance for an entire civilization based on just three discovered vessels is a classic hasty generalization.
- Causal / Functional Jump: Finding olive oil does not prove it was used primarily for food (it could have been used for lamp fuel, medicinal ointments, or religious rituals).
Evaluating Abstract Answer Descriptions
The correct answer option will describe the flaw in abstract terms without using passage-specific vocabulary: "The argument draws a sweeping conclusion about overall dietary patterns based on a sample too small and localized to yield reliable inferences."
Over the past year, City Y installed high-efficiency LED streetlights across all residential neighborhoods. Energy records show that total municipal electricity consumption for public lighting dropped by 35 percent. However, the city's total electric utility bill for streetlights increased by 15 percent over the same period. Which of the following, if true, best resolves the apparent paradox?
Consider the following argument: 'We must either double our corporate marketing budget immediately or accept a catastrophic decline in market share next fiscal year.' Which logical flaw is most evident in this argument?
A university administrator states: 'Our academic program is the most prestigious in the nation because it enjoys a reputation and standing superior to that of any other institution.' This argument is flawed because it:
You've completed this section
Continue exploring other exams