INDUCTIVE REASONING

The bulk of arguments on the GMAT are inductive. In this section we will classify and study the major types of inductive
arguments.

An argument is deductive if its conclusion necessarily follows from its premises—otherwise it is inductive. In an inductive
argument, the author presents the premises as evidence or reasons for the conclusion. The validity of the conclusion
depends on how compelling the premises are. Unlike deductive arguments, the conclusion of an inductive argument is
never certain. The truth of the conclusion can range from highly likely to highly unlikely. In reasonable arguments, the
conclusion is likely. In fallacious arguments, it is improbable. We will study both reasonable and fallacious arguments.

First, we will classify the three major types of inductive reasoning—generalization, analogy, and causal—and their
associated fallacies. Next, we will study common fallacies.

Generalization/Sampling/Representativeness
Generalization and analogy, which we consider in the next section, are the main tools by which we accumulate knowledge
and analyze our world. Many people define generalization as “inductive reasoning.” In colloquial speech, the phrase “to
generalize” carries a negative connotation. To argue by generalization, however, is neither inherently good nor bad. The
relative validity of a generalization depends on both the context of the argument and the likelihood that its conclusion is
true.

When GMAT arguments include evidence in the form of surveys, studies, polls, anecdotes, or experiments, a key issue is
often the representativeness of the group used as evidence. You may be familiar with the idea of representativeness from
a statistics or research methods class. This concept is no different on the GMAT. In order to be representative, a sample
must be large enough, the survey length must have covered an adequate amount of time, and the population surveyed
cannot be biased in some flawed way.

Here’s a sampling argument, in general terms:

Premise: A survey or sample is taken from a subpopulation.
Conclusion: The results of the survey or sample are extended to the population as a whole.
Assumption: Sampling arguments assume that the sample is representative. That is, the sample accurately mirrors the
larger population.

The author who uses this kind of statistical evidence always assumes that the evidence is relevant to the scope of the
conclusion. But in order for this to be the case, the sample used in the evidence must be representative of the group to
which the conclusion is applied. Oftentimes on GMAT questions, the sample will prove to be too small for, or outside the
scope of, the conclusion.

A poll of Ryan’s class revealed that the students overwhelmingly preferred chocolate to other flavors of
ice cream. Chocolate must be the most popular flavor in the school.

For this argument, the premise is that Ryan’s class prefers chocolate ice cream. The conclusion is that chocolate is the
most popular flavor in the school. The argument assumes that Ryan’s class is a representative sample of the entire school.
Perhaps Ryan’s class has only 10 students in a vanilla-loving school of 300…

Here’s how to weaken or strengthen this type of argument:

 Assumption: The sample is representative and accurately mirrors the larger population.
 To Strengthen: Show that the sample represents the population at large; indicate that the sample population lacks any
characteristics that would bias the results.
 To Weaken: Show that the sample does not represent the population; find evidence that there is reason to believe the
sample is biased.
 Candidate A was widely believed to be the favorite in her state’s gubernatorial race. Candidate B, the
incumbent governor, had figured prominently in a corruption scandal during the previous year. Although
he was ultimately never charged with a crime, Candidate B received very negative coverage in local and
national media. A poll of registered voters in the state showed that a majority supported Candidate A and
would vote for her. In fact, election day “exit polls” of those who voted showed that most had voted for
Candidate A, and so she was expected to win. However, once the votes were counted, Candidate B was
shown to have won a narrow victory. Clearly, respondents to the polls were not being honest when they
claimed to have supported Candidate A.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A It is difficult to predict the degree to which an incumbent candidate’s support will be affected by
negative media coverage.
B The negative media coverage made supporters of Candidate B reluctant to express their views in
public, and so they claimed to support Candidate A when they actually had voted for Candidate B.
C No voter ever changes his or her mind about whom to vote for.
D Candidate B successfully used the fact that he had not been charged with a crime to restore his good
image with the voting public.
E The sample of voters surveyed in the exit poll was representative of those who voted in the election.

Step 1: Identify the Question Type.

This question directs you to find an assumption on which the argument depends, so this is definitely an Assumption
question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument.

The argument concludes that respondents to recent election exit polls and pre-election polls were not being honest when
they claimed to have supported Candidate A for governor. The evidence for this is that despite a strong showing in these
polls, Candidate A still lost the election.

Step 3: State the Goal.

This conclusion is based in part on the results of two polls, so those polls need to have been conducted with representative
samples in order for the conclusion to be valid. After all, what if the polls had both been conducted outside campaign
rallies for Candidate A or in Candidate A’s hometown? The sample group for the polls needs to be an adequate cross
section of the voting population, and since this argument stakes its conclusion on the polls, the author of the argument
must be assuming that the sample is indeed representative.

On Test Day, if you’re asked an Assumption question and you notice that the stimulus focuses on a study, survey, poll, or
experiment, know that a choice that essentially says, “The sample was representative,” is likely to be correct.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right.

(E) matches this prediction perfectly and is the correct answer. If you used the Denial Test to negate (E), by stating that
the poll’s sample group was not representative, then the author’s conclusion that voters must have lied can no longer be
valid. If the people who participated in the polls were not representative of the larger voting population, then there would
be no particular reason to expect the poll and voting results to be similar. (E) is therefore a necessary assumption of the
argument.

(A) is not necessary to the argument because the author doesn’t base her conclusion on a prediction drawn from the press
coverage. Rather, the author bases her conclusion on a prediction drawn from the polling data. (B), if true, would
strengthen the argument, but this isn’t a Strengthen question; the right answer to an Assumption question must be
something upon which the argument relies. While the argument asserts that people polled lied about whom they voted
for, it does not depend on any particular reason why they did so. (C) is far too extreme; the argument’s point that the
polls’ respondents lied is not undone if one or two people simply changed their minds. As for (D), the author doesn’t
necessarily assume anything about how Candidate B was able to eke out a victory. Choice (E) is correct.
 In recent years, Doberman attacks on small children have risen dramatically. Last year saw 35 such attacks
in the continental United States alone, an increase of almost 21 percent over the previous year’s total.
Clearly, then, it is unsafe to keep dogs as pets if one has small children.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

A No reasonable justification for these attacks by Dobermans has been discovered.

B Other household pets, such as cats, don’t display the same violent tendencies.
C The number of Doberman attacks on small children will continue to rise in the coming years.
D A large percentage of Doberman attacks could have been avoided if the Dobermans had been leashed
or muzzled.
E The behavior that Dobermans exhibit toward small children is representative of the behavior of dogs
in general.

Step 1: Identify the Question Type.

The word “strengthen” indicates that we’ll need to support the argument’s conclusion by making its central assumption
more likely to be true.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument.

The conclusion is signaled by the keyword “clearly” in the last sentence: If one has small children, it is unsafe to keep dogs
as pets. The evidence is data indicating an increase in attacks on small children by Dobermans.

Step 3: State the Goal.

Whenever an argument contains a sample or a study, suspect a representativeness issue. In this argument, we have
evidence about Dobermans, but the conclusion is about dogs in general. The author must be assuming that Dobermans
are representative of dogs in general. To strengthen the argument, we’ll look for the answer choice that supports (or
simply restates as fact) this assumption. Note that we could have simply treated this question as a scope shift from
“Dobermans” in the evidence to “dogs” in the conclusion. Indeed, the problem of representativeness often simply
amounts to a scope shift: One group mentioned in the evidence is assumed to be representative of a different group
mentioned in the conclusion.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right.

(E) matches our prediction and is correct. (A) is incorrect because it is outside the scope. The reason for the Doberman
attacks is irrelevant. (B) again falls outside the scope. We’re interested in dogs, not “other household pets.” (C) is again
irrelevant to the argument. If Doberman attacks continue to increase, then we can certainly conclude that Dobermans are
unsafe to have around young children, but we cannot necessarily conclude that all dogs are unsafe in this regard. Finally,
(D) is a 180, since it weakens rather than strengthens the argument. If the Doberman attacks cited as evidence could have
been prevented with muzzles or leashes, then perhaps it would be safe to keep Dobermans (and other dogs) around small
children as long as such safety measures are in place. Choice (E) is the correct answer.
 A social worker surveyed 200 women, each of whom had recently given birth to her first child. Half of the
women surveyed had chosen to give birth in a hospital or obstetrics clinic; the other half had chosen to
give birth at home under the care of certified midwives. Of the 100 births that occurred at home, only 5
presented substantial complications, whereas 17 of the hospital births presented substantial
complications. The social worker concluded from the survey that the home is actually a safer environment
in which to give birth than a hospital or clinic.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls the social worker’s conclusion into question?

A Women who give birth in hospitals and clinics often have shorter periods of labor than do women
who give birth at home.
B Many obstetricians discourage patients from giving birth at home.
C All of the women in the study who had been diagnosed as having a high possibility of delivery
complications elected to give birth in a hospital.
D Women who give birth at home tend to experience less stress during labor than women who deliver
in hospitals.
E Pregnant doctors prefer giving birth in a hospital.

Step 1: Identify the Question Type.

Since we need to call the social worker’s conclusion into question, we need to weaken it.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument.

The social worker’s conclusion is that it is safer to give birth at home than at a hospital or clinic. The evidence for this is a
survey in which some women chose to give birth at a hospital and others chose home birth. Overall, the hospital births
presented more substantial medical complications than did the home births.

Step 3: State the Goal.

We can successfully undermine the social worker’s conclusion if we undermine the evidence on which it’s based, namely,
the study. If we find an answer choice that tells us that the survey is invalid or that the sample studied in the survey is
unrepresentative, then any conclusion based on the survey would be in doubt.

Step 4: Work from wrong to right.

(C) tells us that the hospital births presented more complications simply because the women who chose to give birth at
the hospital were predisposed to complications. This suggests that these women would have had complications no matter
where they gave birth, which undermines the conclusion that a hospital is less safe than a home as a place to give birth.
Thus, choice (C) is the correct answer. (A) is out of scope. A shorter labor can still be more dangerous, so this isn’t a valid
weakener. Just because obstetricians discourage home birth, as (B) says, doesn’t mean that the home is more or less safe
than a hospital; there could be plenty of reasons why the obstetricians would discourage home birth. (D) strengthens the
argument by telling us that women who give birth at home experience less stress, which could potentially make their
births go more smoothly. (E) also goes outside the scope of the argument. Pregnant doctors might prefer to give birth in
a hospital simply because they are more familiar with the hospital environment, not because a hospital is necessarily safer.
Choice (C) is correct.
 A team of pediatricians recently announced that pet birds are more likely to bite children under age 13
than people of any other age group. The team’s finding was based on a study showing that the majority
of all bird bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13. The study also found that the birds
most likely to bite are cockatiels and parakeets.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the pediatricians’ conclusion that birds are more likely
to bite children under age 13 than people of any other age group?

A More than half of bird bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such
attention, involve people aged 13 and older.
B The majority of bird bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older.
C Many serious bird bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by birds other than cockatiels and
parakeets.
D Most bird bites in children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they
initially appear.
E Most parents can learn to treat bird bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of
medical information.

Step 1: Identify the Question Type.

This stem contains a wealth of helpful information. Not only do we see the telltale keyword “weaken” indicating the
question type, but we also have the conclusion of the argument stated directly in the stem. Part of our job is already done.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument.

The basic conclusion of the pediatricians is that pet birds are more likely to bite young children than older people. The
evidence for this is a study, which should ring alarm bells for representativeness issues. The study indicates that when we
look at injuries that required medical attention, we see that most of the injuries were to young children.

Step 3: State the Goal.

But not all bird bites necessarily require medical attention, so in order for this study’s results to prove that birds are more
likely to bite young children overall, we need proof that the bird bites requiring medical attention are representative of
all bird bites. So to weaken this argument, let’s find a choice that essentially says, “Bites that require medical attention
are not representative of bites in general.”

Step 4: Work from wrong to right.

You’ll then be drawn to choice (A): Looking at all bird bite injuries reveals that most of them don’t require medical
attention, and of those that don’t, more than half of them are suffered by people over the age of 13. (A) would actually
indicate that birds are just as likely, if not more likely, to bite people over the age of 13 as to bite younger children. Thus,
choice (A) is the correct answer. Just because senior citizens are more likely to die from bird bites, as (B) says, doesn’t
mean that they’re more likely to be bitten in the first place. (C) improperly seizes on the last sentence of the argument,
which is a tangential statement that has no bearing on the overall conclusion. (D) is off base because the argument deals
with the likelihood that a bird will bite someone, not with the likelihood that the bite is serious. (E) commits a similar error
by dealing with treatment; this argument is only concerned with the relative frequency of bird bites occurring in the first
place and not with the treatment plans for bites that have already occurred. Choice (A) is correct.
 During the late seventies when Japan was rapidly expanding its share of the American auto market, GM
surveyed owners of GM cars and asked them whether they would be more willing to buy a large, powerful
car or a small, economical car. Seventy percent of those who responded said that they would prefer a
large car. On the basis of this survey, GM decided to continue building large cars. Yet during the ‘80s, GM
lost even more of the market to the Japanese.

Which one of the following, if it were determined to be true, would best explain this discrepancy.

A Only 10 percent of those who were polled replied.

B Ford which conducted a similar survey with similar results continued to build large cars and also lost
more of their market to the Japanese.
C The surveyed owners who preferred big cars also preferred big homes.
D GM determined that it would be more profitable to make big cars.
E Eighty percent of the owners who wanted big cars and only 40 percent of the owners who wanted
small cars replied to the survey.

The argument generalizes from the survey to the general car-buying population, so the reliability of the projection depends
on how representative the sample is. At first glance, choice (A) seems rather good, because 10 percent does not seem
large enough. However, political opinion polls are typically based on only .001 percent of the population. More
importantly, we don’t know what percentage of GM car owners received the survey. Choice (B) simply states that Ford
made the same mistake that GM did. Choice (C) is irrelevant. Choice (D), rather than explaining the discrepancy, gives
even more reason for GM to continue making large cars. Finally, choice (E) points out that part of the survey did not
represent the entire public, so Choice (E) is the answer.

The takeaway is, when you see an argument based on the findings of a study, survey, experiment, or analogy, compare
the population of the evidence with that of the conclusion.
Analogy Arguments
To argue by analogy is to claim that because two things are similar in some respects, they will be similar in others.

The following words usually indicate that an analogy is being drawn:

Analogy Indicators
like too likewise compared to
similar as with also just as … so too …

Analogy arguments follow this basic format:

Premise: A fact or statement is given about x.
Conclusion: The fact about x is used to draw a conclusion about y.
Assumption: x and y are similar enough to draw a valid comparison; what is true of x is also true of y.

Britt had weight-loss surgery and has lost 100 pounds. Andy should have the surgery too since he wants
to lose weight.

For this argument, the premises are (1) Britt had weight-loss surgery and lost 100 pounds (2) Andy wants to lose weight.
The conclusion is that Andy should have the surgery too. The argument assumes that what worked for Britt will work for
Andy. Perhaps Andy is in poor health and would not even survive the surgery…

Medical experimentation on animals is predicated on such reasoning. The argument goes like this: the metabolism of pigs,
for example, is similar to that of humans, and high doses of saccharine cause cancer in pigs. Therefore, high doses of
saccharine probably cause cancer in humans.

Clearly, the greater the similarity between the two things being compared the stronger the argument will be. Also the less
ambitious the conclusion the stronger the argument will be. The argument above would be strengthened by changing
“probably” to “may.” It can be weakened by pointing out the dissimilarities between pigs and people.

Here’s how to weaken or strengthen this type of argument:

 Assumption: x and y are similar enough to draw a valid comparison; what is true of x is also true of y.
 To Strengthen: Show that the two things being compared are similar. Indicate there are no significant differences in
the characteristics of the two things being compared.
 To Weaken: Show that the two things being compared differ in some significant way.

Last month, the Hungarian embassy had to be emptied because of a perceived threat of a bomb in the
building. Therefore, anyone who targets the Nigerian embassy next door will create similar chaos.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

The author concludes that life at the Nigerian embassy will be disrupted by a bomb threat because it happened at the
Hungarian embassy. The author assumes that the two embassies will be equally affected because they are equally
prepared. Therefore, the correct answer might read something like this:

o In response to the trouble at the Hungarian embassy, each of the other embassies on the block
tightened security by doubling the number of watchmen who patrol the border of the property.

This answer choice asserts that the two embassies are different, so the chance that the two will be affected equally by a
bomb threat is weakened. The argument isn’t ruined, of course (after all, the new guards could be idiots or blind or
something), but you still have to scratch your head as to whether the argument is defensible.
 Hundo is a Japanese car company, and Hundos run for many miles on a gallon of gas. Toyo is also a
Japanese car company; therefore, Toyos should get good gas mileage, too.

The author’s conclusion would be best supported by which of the following?

A All Japanese car manufacturers use the same types of engines in their cars.
B British cars run for as many miles on a tank of gas as Hundos do.
C The Toyo manufacturer focuses on producing large utility vehicles.
D Toyo has been manufacturing cars for over 20 years.
E All Japanese cars have excellent service records.

Recognizing the premises and conclusion in this argument is simple. The author states directly that Hundo cars are
Japanese and get good gas mileage and that Toyo cars are Japanese; therefore, Toyos also get good gas mileage. Your job
is to find the answer that perpetuates the similarity between Hundos and Toyos.

You can generally eliminate answer choices that introduce irrelevant information, like (B), (D), and (E). The author
compares Japanese cars, so what British cars do has nothing to do with the argument. The length of time that Toyo has
been in business tells you nothing about how similar its cars are to Hundo’s. And the question is talking about gas mileage,
not service records, so don’t spend too much time considering (E).

Answer (C) tells you the focus of Toyo producers, but it doesn’t give you any information about how that compares to
Hundo, so the best answer is choice (A). If all Japanese manufacturers supply their cars with the same engines and Hundo
and Toyo are both Japanese manufacturers, it’s more likely that Toyos will achieve a gas mileage similar to that
experienced by Hundos.

Often, however, a writer will use an analogy without flagging it with any of the above words.

Just as the fishing line becomes too taut, so too the trials and tribulations of life in the city can become so
stressful that one’s mind can snap.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the argument above?

A Just as the bow may be drawn too taut, so too may one’s life be wasted pursuing self-gratification.
B Just as a gambler’s fortunes change unpredictably, so too do one’s career opportunities come
unexpectedly.
C Just as a plant can be killed by over watering it, so too can drinking too much water lead to lethargy.
D Just as the engine may race too quickly, so too may life in the fast lane lead to an early death.
E Just as an actor may become stressed before a performance, so too may dwelling on the negative
cause depression.

The argument compares the tautness in a fishing line to the stress of city life; it then concludes that the mind can snap
just as the fishing line can. So we are looking for an answer-choice that compares two things and draws a conclusion based
on their similarity. Notice that we are looking for an argument that uses similar reasoning, but not necessarily similar
concepts. In fact, an answer-choice that mentions either tautness or stress will probably be a same-language trap.

Choice (A) uses the same-language trap—notice “too taut.” The analogy between a taut bow and self-gratification is weak,
if existent. Choice (B) offers a good analogy but no conclusion. Choice (C) offers both a good analogy and a conclusion;
however, the conclusion, “leads to lethargy,” understates the scope of what the analogy implies. Choice (D) offers a strong
analogy and a conclusion with the same scope found in the original: “the engine blows, the person dies”; “the line snaps,
the mind snaps.” This is probably the best answer, but still we should check every choice. The last choice, (E), uses language
from the original, “stressful,” to make its weak analogy more tempting. The best answer, therefore, is (D).