Support Most people believe that yawning is most powerfully triggered by seeing someone else yawn. ████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ████████
The author concludes that seeing someone else yawn is the most powerful trigger of yawning. Why? Because most people believe this to be true! According to historians, this was a widespread belief in the past as well.
In this argument, the author supports a factual conclusion with evidence only about popular beliefs. But we have no reason to think that most people are correct—we don't know if it's actually true that seeing someone else yawn is the most powerful trigger of yawning. Because the type of support offered (belief) doesn't match the type of conclusion advanced (fact), the argument is unconvincing; this mismatch is the flaw.
Even having identified the flaw, though, it's not always easy to find the correct answer. Answer choices can be phrased in tricky ways that misdirect our attention. So it's important to read closely and be certain the answer choice completely matches the flaw that we identified. This will help us to avoid trap answers.
Analysis by AlexandraNash
The argument is most vulnerable ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
It attempts to ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████
It cites the ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████
It makes a ████████ ██████████████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████
It supports its ██████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████
It takes for ███████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██████