Verbal ReasoningPractice

← Prep roadmap

Logical Flaws

Logical Flaws questions ask you to name the error in an argument's reasoning: correlation treated as causation, necessary confused with sufficient, overgeneralisation, false dilemma, and the like. The flaw is always in the reasoning, not in whether a premise is true.

Next step

Choose how you want to practise.

Start guided for explanations after every answer, or skip ahead to the checkpoint.

Practise Logical Flaws with a free account. A free account gives you 20 premium preview credits to spend on locked modules like this one.

Create a free accountUnlock everything — $29

The method and question preview above are free to read.

How to think about it

  1. Identify how the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises.
  2. Name the reasoning error in that move (e.g. correlation ≠ causation, necessary ≠ sufficient).
  3. Reject options that merely dispute a fact — a flaw is about the reasoning.
  4. Match the exact flaw family, not just a plausible-sounding one.

The most common trap

Offering a factual objection instead of a reasoning flaw.

Read the full method guide

Question preview

Logical Flawscorrelation causationhard

A survey found that employees who use standing desks take fewer sick days than those who use seated desks. The firm's wellbeing team points to this as evidence that standing desks keep staff healthier. Switching the whole firm to standing desks would therefore cut its sick days.

Which of the following best identifies the flaw in the argument's reasoning?

Report this question