GMAT Essays: Avoid Fallacy Fallacy

June 13, 2012 by



GMAT BlogScene: a busy street. A businessman in a suit and tie stands before a cloth covered table. A fortune teller sits on the other side of the table, peering into a crystal ball.

Fortune teller: “I see danger in your future, you are at grave risk! For $20, I shall peer into this crystal ball and tell you how disaster can be avoided!”

Businessman: “What a load of $&#%! Fortune telling is nonsense, and there is no way you could see my future through the crystal ball. I’m certain I’m in no danger whatsoever!”

Businessman walks across the street without looking and is run over by an ice cream truck.

So, GMAT students, was the fortune teller right? Was she genuinely psychic? Did her crystal ball receive emanations from the spirits predicting the future?

Of course not. Scientific consensus is that psychic powers don’t exist, and even the superstitious must acknowledge plastromancy as the superior form of divination.

But the businessman made a critical mistake: he made what’s known as the“Fallacy Fallacy,” mistaking a flawed argument for a false conclusion. Sure, the crystal-ball reading was a foolish basis for arguments about danger. But as the old saying goes, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Anyone standing on a busy city street is at low-to-moderate risk. Although the fortune teller has no justification for her claim, she happened to be right that the businessman was at risk through accident of location. And the businessman, foolishly assuming himself to be perfectly safe, compounded his risk through his own poor logic.

When you see the Analytical Writing Assessment (which remains on the New GMAT), bear  in mind this example . The argument you are given will invariably be terrible, but you can’t dismiss the conclusion solely on that basis. Moreover, the GMAT essay prompts will generally refer to fictional people and business in made-up locations. That means there are countless unknowns and hypotheticals that make definitive judgment impossible.

To plan your response to the AWA, consider the businessman. His proper response would be, “Your crystal ball isn’t persuasive. If I’m at risk, it’s because of factors you can’t possibly be aware of. And if I do get hit by a car, it won’t be because of your crystal ball. Now, excuse me, I need to wait for a walk sign.”  And so, when analyzing an argument on the GMAT, you should always conclude the same way. Make clear that the author could be right—he could be lucky, a confluence of factors could make his plan work or bring his prediction to fruition. But his evidence will invariably be lacking, and his logic will certainly rely on improbable assumptions. Go on to explain that he must be lucky for his conclusion to be valid, because luck is the only thing he has going for him.

 

Question of the day:

Our company’s chief financial advisor is outstanding. Of the ten stocks she invested company funds in over the past year, eight have increased in value, two of them by more than three times the market average. Unfortunately, we know that one of our competitors has been attempting to hire our employees away from us, and she is likely to be on that competitors list of targets. To retain her services, we should substantially increase her salary, contingent on her willingness to sign a non-compete agreement.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the reasoning in the statement above?

Let’s analyze this together.  Take this argument apart and post your thoughts here.  Then I’ll jump in and help put it all together…

4 Comments Filed under GMAT, GMAT analytical writing assessment AWA Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Eli MeyerAbout Eli Meyer
Eli Meyer has been a Kaplan teacher since 2003. He has spent the past four years focused almost exclusively on the GMAT, and also has prior experience helping students ranging from middle-schoolers taking the ISEE to professors retaking the GRE for their second PhD. During his Kaplan career, Elis has also written and revised Kaplan course materials and acted as a community liaison on several popular GMAT message boards, all the while helping his students succeed both in and out of the classroom.

  • Maverick

    Please correct and give me feedback ELI as i am self-preparing GMAT . . And This will help to improve my writing:

    The author argues that due to the company’s chief financial advisor smartness and intelligent mind along with employees’ hard work, and dedication , the stock in which she invested has increased the value and two of them has increased than 3 times the market value. And because of this reason the competitors are targeting her and the employees to hire . The author directly jumps to the conclusion, with the view in her(author) mind, to retain the current employees and the financial advisor by increasing the salary and contingent on her willingness to sign a non-compete agreement. However the conclusion to retain the financial advisor and the employees may be fallicious on the following background.

    First, the author assumes that, due to the genius mind of the financial advisor and policy taken by her in investing the stock have significantly increased the value. However, the evidence might not be sufficient to support this. The author doesn’t specify the economic stability and the economic cycle enjoyed by the nation. For.e.g If the nation is suffering from the double dip economic recession, than the company will not enjoy this much increment. it could be strengthened if the author recognizes, and present the overall economic conditions of nation.

    Second, the author fails to mention the economic situation, the worth, the management quality and skill of the company whose stock to rallied higher, in which the financial advisor have invested. May be the companies introdues new innovations that led the financial data are more positive, and provide more satisfaction to the shareholders. Thus the value might have increased, not because of the financial advisor and the employees. The conclusion could have been strengthened if the author mention this facts.

    Third, the author present that salary increment and contingent on her willingness to sign a non-compete agreement can help to retain the financial advisor and employees in present company. However the author fails to recognize the working condition, other intrinsic factors, self satisfaction, and motivation to work for present one. If the author specified this factor as well than the arguement coulkd have been strengthened.

    In sum, if the author had considered the suggestions of strengthening arguement, the conclusion have been valid.

    • Eli Meyer

      Hi Maverick,

      It looks like this prompt gave you a little trouble. Make sure you take the time to understand and paraphrase all the information in the top. If you did, you’d know that the point in your second paragraph about “economic cycle” WAS referenced by the text; the “market average” depends largely on the prevailing economic conditions.

      Additionally, you mention that some of the stocks might have increased “not because of the financial advisor,” but this was never a premise of the argument! The financial advisor’s roll is to select stocks to purchase, not to advise the finances of those companies whose stock is purchased.

      Make sure that you’re spending 8 minutes or so to plan. The Kaplan method is to spend 2 minutes reading and paraphrasing the argument and conclusion, 5 minutes carefully analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of that argument, and 1 minute putting those points into a template. Slow yourself down, and make sure that your points are directly relevant to the prompt before you start writing.

      Thanks for posting your essay, and I look forward to seeing more–keep working, and you’re sure to improve. Good luck!

      Eli

  • Majda-PHR

    I am also preparing for the GMAT please correct and comment to help me improve!
    The writer argues and concludes that the chief financial advisor is outstanding and he is building his argument based on one year only neglecting several facts. The first is when we invest in stocks there is a high level of risk and uncertainty, many complex issues that can affect this investment and time and timing is a prime factor. In stocks one year is not enough to clearly judge if those stocks were educated choices or not. We don’t have enough info to judge the situation, may be some extreme and rare circumstances that led to those 20% to gain that much value.
    Secondly the writer focused only on the twenty percent of all the stocks the chief advisor invested in, and failed to discuss the other eighty percent, especially the twenty percent that they didn’t gain value, we don’t know if they remained unchanged or they lost so much value over the past year. He only focused on what went right.
    So the writer concluded that the chief advisor is outstanding just based on the 20% stock gain. What about other financial matters that doesn’t include stock investment? The writer again fails to discuss the other aspects of her duties as a financial advisor and focused solely on one portion of her many duties as a financial advisor.
    Again the writer commits a fallacy when he/she assumes that the only way to retain talented and experienced employees is via raising their salaries and the writer focused on maintaining the advisor, as he/she neglects the rest of the talented employees that are contributing positively to the company. He doesn’t mention meeting with the financial advisor and other valued employees and try to find out what motivates them and what makes her click. Money is not the only motivator to many talented employees.
    Non-compete agreement is beneficial when the employee leaves the company; it is not a helpful tool to gladly retain employees by their own choosing. He again neglected the fact that team training and development can help the company not to rely on one employee but on several to attain the objectives of the company, so when one decides to leave, several are trained and developed to take over as the hiring process begins.

    • Eli Meyer

      Hi Majda,

      This is a solid start to an essay. You caught several major problems–we have no idea about the actual change in value of the stocks, whether the advisor was clever about the stocks or just lucky, or whether the non-compete would simply drive her away. Great job! Unfortunately, you didn’t conclude your argument at all. Remember, you need to present the evidence that would strengthen the argument–what WOULD convince you to do what the author recommends?–and then point out that, without such evidence, you aren’t persuaded.

      Hope this helps!