**GRE AWA Argument Task: Identifying Unwarranted Assumptions – Complete Study Guide**

GRE AWA Argument Task: Identifying Unwarranted Assumptions – Complete Study Guide

(Premium Test-Prep Level | 320+ Scoring Focus)

What This Is

The GRE Argument Task tests your ability to critically evaluate a short argument by identifying its logical flaws, particularly unwarranted assumptions—gaps in reasoning the author takes for granted without evidence. ETS rewards precise, structured critiques that expose these assumptions, not just vague complaints. Mastering this skill can boost your AWA score from 3.5 to 5.0+ by demonstrating analytical rigor and clear writing.

Example of a Real GRE-Style Argument:

"The city of Greenville should build a new sports stadium to attract more tourists. After all, neighboring Riverside built a stadium last year and saw a 20% increase in hotel bookings."

Flaw: The argument assumes the stadium caused Riverside’s tourism boost—ignoring other possible factors (e.g., a new airport, marketing campaigns, or seasonal trends).

Key Concepts & Techniques

1. Unwarranted Assumption (UA)
2. What it is: A claim the author treats as true without proof, often linking evidence to the conclusion.

3. When to use: Every Argument Task. Scan for phrases like "clearly," "obviously," "this shows that," or implied cause-effect relationships.

4. Correlation ≠ Causation

5. What it is: Assuming Event A caused Event B just because they happened together.

6. When to use: When the argument cites a statistical trend (e.g., "Sales rose after the ad campaign") without ruling out other causes.

7. Overgeneralization

8. What it is: Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.

9. When to use: When the argument uses limited data (e.g., "Three customers complained, so the product is flawed").

10. False Dichotomy

11. What it is: Presenting only two options when more exist (e.g., "Either we raise taxes or the city will go bankrupt").

12. When to use: When the argument frames a binary choice without considering alternatives.

13. Circular Reasoning

14. What it is: The conclusion restates the premise (e.g., "The policy is effective because it works well").

15. When to use: When the argument’s logic goes in a loop without new evidence.

16. Appeal to Authority

17. What it is: Citing an expert’s opinion as proof without verifying their relevance or the evidence behind it.

18. When to use: When the argument relies on phrases like "experts agree" or "studies show" without details.

19. Ignoring Counterexamples

20. What it is: Failing to address contradictory evidence that weakens the argument.

21. When to use: When the argument presents one-sided data (e.g., "Most employees support the policy" without mentioning dissenters).

22. Time-Shift Assumption

23. What it is: Assuming past trends will continue unchanged into the future.
24. When to use: When the argument uses historical data to predict outcomes (e.g., "Sales have risen for 5 years, so they’ll keep rising").

Step-by-Step Strategy (4-Step Process)

Step 1: Read for the Conclusion & Evidence

• Action: Underline the conclusion (the author’s main claim) and evidence (facts/data supporting it).
• Why: You can’t spot flaws if you don’t know what’s being argued.
• Example:
• Conclusion: "Greenville should build a stadium to attract tourists."
• Evidence: "Riverside built a stadium and saw a 20% increase in hotel bookings."

Step 2: Identify the Logical Gap (Unwarranted Assumption)

• Action: Ask: "What must be true for the evidence to prove the conclusion?"
• Key Questions:
• Does the evidence directly support the conclusion, or is there a missing link?
• Are there alternative explanations for the evidence?
• Does the argument ignore other factors?
• Example:
• Gap: The argument assumes the stadium caused Riverside’s tourism boost—ignoring other possible causes (e.g., a new airport, marketing campaigns, or a one-time event).

Step 3: Name the Flaw & Explain Why It’s a Problem

• Action: Label the flaw (e.g., "correlation ≠ causation") and explain how it weakens the argument.
• Template:

  "The argument assumes that [X] caused [Y], but it fails to consider [alternative explanation]. Without ruling out [Z], the conclusion is unjustified."

  
  

• Example:

  "The argument assumes the stadium caused Riverside’s tourism increase, but it fails to consider other factors like a new airport or seasonal trends. Without ruling out these alternatives, the conclusion is unjustified."

  
  

Step 4: Suggest How to Fix the Flaw

• Action: Propose 1–2 specific pieces of evidence that would strengthen the argument.
• Why: ETS rewards constructive criticism—show you understand how to improve the argument.
• Example:

  "To strengthen the argument, the author should provide data showing that (1) Riverside’s tourism increase began only after the stadium opened, and (2) no other major events or infrastructure changes occurred during that time."

  
  

Fully Worked GRE-Style Example

Argument:

"The town of Maplewood should ban all plastic bags to reduce litter. Last year, Oakville banned plastic bags and saw a 30% decrease in litter on its streets. Therefore, Maplewood will experience the same benefit."

Step 1: Conclusion & Evidence
- Conclusion: Maplewood should ban plastic bags to reduce litter.
- Evidence: Oakville banned plastic bags and saw a 30% decrease in litter.

Step 2: Identify the Gap
- Flaw: The argument assumes: 1. The plastic bag ban caused Oakville’s litter reduction (correlation ≠ causation).
2. Maplewood’s situation is identical to Oakville’s (overgeneralization).

Step 3: Name & Explain the Flaw

"The argument assumes that Oakville’s litter reduction was solely due to the plastic bag ban, ignoring other possible causes such as increased street cleaning, public awareness campaigns, or seasonal variations. Additionally, it assumes Maplewood’s litter problem is identical to Oakville’s without considering differences in population, waste management policies, or local businesses. Without addressing these gaps, the conclusion is unwarranted."

Step 4: Suggest Fixes

"To strengthen the argument, the author should: 1. Provide data showing that Oakville’s litter reduction began immediately after the ban and was not influenced by other factors.
2. Compare Maplewood’s current litter composition to Oakville’s to confirm plastic bags are a major contributor.
3. Show that Maplewood’s waste management infrastructure is similar to Oakville’s."

Common Mistakes

GRE Traps & Timing

Traps ETS Sets

1. Hidden Assumptions in Word Choice
2. Trap: Phrases like "clearly," "obviously," or "this proves that" often signal unwarranted assumptions.
3. Example: "Clearly, the policy worked because morale improved." → Assumes morale improvement was due to the policy.

4. How to Avoid: Circle these phrases and ask: "Is this really proven?"

5. False Comparisons

6. Trap: Comparing two unrelated or dissimilar situations (e.g., "Company X’s policy worked, so Company Y’s will too").

7. How to Avoid: Ask: "Are these situations truly comparable?"

8. Ignoring Alternative Explanations

9. Trap: The argument presents one cause for an effect without considering others.
10. Example: "Crime dropped after the new police chief was hired." → Assumes the chief caused the drop (could be new laws, economic changes, etc.).
11. How to Avoid: Brainstorm 2–3 alternative causes before writing.

Timing Budget

• Total Time: 30 minutes (recommended: 5 min planning, 20 min writing, 5 min revising).
• Per Step:
• Step 1 (Read): 2–3 min (underline conclusion/evidence).
• Step 2 (Identify Flaws): 5 min (list 2–3 assumptions).
• Step 3 (Explain Flaws): 10 min (write 3–4 body paragraphs).
• Step 4 (Suggest Fixes): 3 min (1–2 specific improvements).
• Intro/Conclusion: 2 min (keep it short—1 sentence each).

Quick Practice

Argument:

"The school board should require all students to take a personal finance course. A survey of 100 students at Lincoln High found that 80% said they would benefit from such a course. Therefore, the course will improve students’ financial literacy."

Flaw: The argument assumes: 1. Survey responses = actual benefit (students may not know what they need).
2. Lincoln High is representative of all schools (overgeneralization).
3. The course will cause improved literacy (no evidence the course is effective).

Correct Answer:

"The argument assumes that students’ self-reported interest in a finance course proves the course will improve literacy. However, it fails to show that (1) students accurately predict their own needs, (2) Lincoln High’s student body is representative of all schools, or (3) the proposed course is effective at teaching financial skills. Without addressing these gaps, the conclusion is unjustified."

Last-Minute Cram Sheet (10 One-Liners)

1. Unwarranted assumption = missing link between evidence and conclusion.
2. Correlation ≠ causation → Always ask: "Could something else explain this?"
3. Overgeneralization → Small sample ≠ universal truth.
4. False dichotomy → Watch for "either/or" traps.
5. Circular reasoning → Conclusion restates the premise (e.g., "It works because it’s effective").
6. Appeal to authority → "Experts say" ≠ proof.
7. Time-shift assumption → Past trends ≠ future guarantees.
8. Always name the flaw (e.g., "This assumes X without evidence").
9. Suggest 1–2 specific fixes (e.g., "Provide data showing X").
10. ETS rewards precision—avoid vague criticism like "the argument is weak."

Final Tip

Memorize 3–4 flaw templates (e.g., correlation ≠ causation, overgeneralization) and practice applying them to real GRE arguments. The more you pre-write critiques, the faster you’ll spot flaws on test day.

Next Step: Pick 3 official ETS Argument prompts and write full critiques using this guide. Time yourself—aim for 25–30 minutes per essay.