Invest 30 seconds...
...for what may lead to a life altering association!
Help Line
- +91.8800.2828.00 (IND)
- 1030-1830 Hrs IST, Mon-Sat
- support@expertsglobal.com
Logical fallacy Critical Reasoning questions on the GMAT appear in standard formats such as resolve the paradox, strengthen, weaken, and assumption questions. However, beneath these familiar labels lies a single core skill: recognizing the logical fallacy in the argument, a skill that lies at the heart of solving these questions successfully. Such questions help you understand why an argument breaks down and how weak logic can lead to an unreliable conclusion. Careful practice with this question type is an essential part of any trusted GMAT preparation course. This page offers you an organized subtopic wise playlist, along with a few worked examples, for efficient preparation of this concept.
This overview presents an important logic theme in GMAT Critical Reasoning: separating cause from effect. You will learn to test the direction of influence, watch for hidden third factors, and apply fast checks such as timelines, controlled comparisons, and counterexamples to judge causal claims across multiple CR question types. The video establishes the overall framework, while the article offers a concise checklist to support disciplined, sharp analysis. The video below walks through this approach, illustrates it clearly, and helps you put it to work in GMAT drills, sectional tests, and full-length GMAT simulations.
A correlation between two events does not automatically establish that one causes the other. In GMAT Critical Reasoning, every proposed causal link should be tested by reviewing the sequence of events, searching for alternative explanations, and asking whether the supposed effect could in fact be the cause. These checks help you decide whether to strengthen, weaken, or evaluate a causal claim. The video demonstrates this process in action, while the article provides a brief checklist and compact examples for targeted practice. The short video below gives a grounded view of this concept and illustrates how the GMAT can test it.
Comparative arguments frequently rest on unspoken assumptions about how groups started out. This overview presents the idea of a baseline equivalence check: before crediting a program or event for any change in outcomes, first verify that the groups were similar on the key initial conditions. Look carefully for prior patterns, selection effects, pre-test measures, and other confounding factors, and then assess the claim. The video introduces the central diagnostic tools, while the article provides practical examples and prompts for practice. The following short video supports a clear understanding of this idea and shows how it is tested on the GMAT.
Analogies clarify arguments when the likenesses genuinely matter and stay proportional. This overview explains how GMAT Critical Reasoning judges analogical claims: pinpoint what is being compared, state which feature is carried across, and check whether the situations, mechanisms, and limits correspond. You will learn to tell strong parallels from shallow ones, preparing you for the video and the stepwise article that follow. This short video clearly explains this concept and shows how it is tested on the GMAT.
GMAT Critical Reasoning questions built around faulty generalizations test whether a conclusion’s reach truly fits the support behind it. This overview shows how sweeping claims based on small, biased, or uncontrolled samples are spotted and refined by examining coverage, representativeness, and alternative explanations. You will learn to notice when a claim goes too far and to favor conclusions that match the data before you engage with the options. The brief video below walks you through this concept and demonstrates how it appears on the GMAT. In this concise video, the concept is explained and its typical GMAT testing pattern is illustrated.
This overview explains circular reasoning: arguments that quietly assume the very point they claim to prove, using the conclusion itself as support. On GMAT Critical Reasoning, you learn to map the premises, check whether any real independent evidence exists, and notice disguised restatements or self-referencing loops. The video walks you through quick checks, while the article offers crisp tests and examples you can rely on under time pressure. This quick video lesson clarifies the concept and highlights how it is tested on the GMAT.
On GMAT Critical Reasoning, the impressed by numbers fallacy leans on striking statistics to persuade without showing why they matter or offering firm support. This overview presents a careful way to read numerical information in Critical Reasoning. You will see how to interpret percentages, ratios, and comparative claims by checking context, scale, and relevance before tying any figure to a conclusion. We also preview quick protective questions that guard against unexamined numbers and help you evaluate arguments in strengthen, weaken, explanation, and evaluation tasks. The following video offers a short explanation of this concept and shows how it can feature on the GMAT.
Critical Reasoning often rewards steady attention to an argument’s central claim. This lesson shows you how to locate the main point, chart the supporting premises, and check whether answer choices truly address that claim instead of wandering toward side benefits or loose facts. You will practice sensing relevance in dialogues and ruling out options that sound sensible yet quietly avoid the core issue. This compact video breaks down the concept and illustrates how it is examined on the GMAT.
On GMAT Critical Reasoning, never assess numbers in isolation. Numerical statements need context: percentages require their reference bases, and absolute figures need a clear sense of scale. A striking percentage on a very small base may still be weak, while modest growth can win in overall totals. Always match like with like, watch for missing baselines or populations, and stay alert to unsupported jumps between different kinds of claims. This overview presents a steady lens for judging such statements, showing you how to align measures, confirm baselines and populations, and avoid turning rates into totals (or totals into rates) without support. The video introduces a checklist you can use across strengthen, weaken, evaluate, and explanation questions, reinforcing evidence-oriented habits developed in GMAT preparation and the quantitative reasoning valued in MBA admissions. In the short video here, you will see the concept explained and applied to GMAT style questions.
Self comparison in GMAT Critical Reasoning arises when an argument measures performance only against its own past or internal standards, and then draws conclusions without any outside benchmark. This overview explains why such claims need context in the form of bases, peer groups, and meaningful criteria. You will see how this flaw shows up in weaken, evaluate, and explanation questions, and how to test it by actively looking for comparable cases. This brief video tutorial explains the concept and demonstrates the way it can be tested on the GMAT.
Mistaking what is necessary for what is sufficient is a classic reasoning trap on GMAT Critical Reasoning. This piece explains how to separate conditions that are required from those that truly ensure a result, and how to use that clarity across common CR question types such as assumption, strengthen, weaken, and evaluation. You will preview simple diagnostic questions, symbolic hints, and short illustrative cases that the article develops in more detail later. The video below provides a quick explanation of this concept and shows how it is used in GMAT questions.
GMAT Critical Reasoning often checks whether you can tell sufficient conditions from necessary ones. This overview clarifies that distinction, shows how arguments wrongly trade one for the other, and introduces a practical test: locate the stated condition, ask whether it truly secures the outcome or only needs to be present, and then look for counterexamples. The video applies this perspective to strengthen, weaken, and evaluation questions. This short clip explains the idea in detail and illustrates how it can appear on the GMAT.
Critical Reasoning sometimes tests whether you can tell the difference between what may happen and what must happen. This overview explains the line between possibility and necessity, with a focus on subset and superset relationships, conditional patterns, and careful inference. You will see how this lens clarifies certain assumption, inference, and evaluation questions and protects you from drawing firm claims from optional conditions. After the video, you can use the article to formalize these checks and work through focused examples. In this short video explanation, the concept is unpacked and its GMAT applications are demonstrated.
Grasping subset and superset relationships is sometimes at the heart of Critical Reasoning. This overview explains how facts about a smaller group do not always carry over to the larger group, and how features of a whole do not automatically describe each individual within it. By sketching overlaps and boundaries before you judge any claim, you can avoid faulty inferences and see more clearly what must be true and what only might be true. The following brief video clarifies this concept and shows how the GMAT can test it.
Real practice for Logical Fallacy questions begins when you solve them on a software simulation that closely matches the official GMAT interface. You need a platform that presents the flawed argument, the question stem, and the answer choices in a GMAT like layout, lets you work with the reasoning and options naturally, and provides all the on screen tools and functionalities that you will see on the actual exam. Without this kind of experience, it is difficult to feel fully prepared for test day. High quality Logical Fallacy questions are not available in large numbers. Among the limited, genuinely strong sources are the official practice materials released by GMAC and the Experts’ Global GMAT course.
Within the Experts’ Global GMAT online preparation course, every Logical Fallacy question appears on an exact GMAT like user interface that includes all the real exam tools and features. You work through more than 40 Logical Fallacy questions in quizzes and also take 15 full-length GMAT mock tests that include several Logical Fallacy questions in roughly the same spread and proportion in which they appear on the actual GMAT.
All the best!
