Stimuli that feature arguments by analogy, where the success or failure of that analogy informs the answer choices.

Arguments that rely on an inappropriate authority to support their conclusions (e.g. conventional mathematics is fundamentally flawed because Terrence Howard says so).

Stimuli that feature a chain of causal claims (e.g. A causes B, B causes C, so A causes C).

Stimuli that feature the logic of causation (i.e., phenomenon-hypothesis, causal chain, experiments, net effect, or multiple causes and effect).

Arguments for which accepting one of the premises involves having already accepted the conclusion.

Stimuli that feature conditional and set logic (e.g. A → B, A is true, therefore B is true).

The "oldest mistake in the book." Arguments that confuse a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. For example, the claim A → B is confused for B → A or /A → /B.

Stimuli that involve two phenomena that are correlated with one another.

Diagramming the logic is likely helpful (but not necessary) to solve the problem.

Stimuli that reason by laying out a set of options, ruling some of those options out, then concluding we must choose the remaining option(s).

Arguments that use a single term to mean two substantially different things, resulting in misleading or invalid reasoning.

Arguments that attempt to split the world up into two (or more) mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive options, when in fact there may be additional available options, or the options given do not actually exclude one another.

Arguments that feature two or more statements that are logically inconsistent with one another (e.g. "bread is delicious" and "bread is not delicious"), or set forth a rule and then come to a judgment that contradicts the rule.

Stimuli that are made significantly easier to understand by kicking some concepts up into the argument's domain.

Stimuli that reason from premises saying "X has not been proven" to a conclusion saying "X must be false."

Arguments that feature an unjustified shift from one concept to another, which don't fit neatly into other common flaw categories (e.g. moving from premises about "buildings" to a conclusion about "houses").

Stimuli that require certain math skills for full comprehension. Most often "% v. amount" or "averages v. individual data points."

Stimuli that feature a jump from a claim about a mental state to a claim about reality (or vice versa).

Counterarguments that either mischaracterize their opponent's position, or fail to address key elements of their reasoning.

Stimuli that assume characteristics that apply to something as a whole must also apply to all its parts, or vice versa.

Stimuli that describe a state of affairs: the phenomenon, then offer a hypothesis that attempts to explain the phenomenon. A sub-type of causal reasoning.

Stimuli that feature the logic of intersecting sets (e.g. some, most, all).

Arguments that illicitly reason from relative premises (e.g. Frank is taller than Spiro) to absolute conclusions (e.g. Frank is tall), or vice versa.

Stimuli that involve the application of a general rule to specific scenarios.

Stimuli that exhibits sampling errors or overgeneralizes. For example, a sample could be unrepresentative of the group that the conclusion is about or the sample is too small to draw any reliable conclusions from.

An argument that attacks the source of a view instead of the merits of that view. The argument erroneously focuses, for example, on the opponents' hypocrisy or bias or motivations, none of which are relevant for assessing the validity of the view.

Analogy between the past, the present, or the future. Arguments that assume past circumstances (e.g. I have always lost the baking contest) support inferences about circumstances in the present or future (e.g. I will lose tomorrow's baking contest).

Stimuli in which a jump from descriptive claims (i.e. "is" claims) to normative claims (i.e. "ought" claims) informs our evaluation of the answer choices.

Reasoning that involves considering or overlooking multiple factors pulling in different directions — whether causal forces with counteracting effects or costs and benefits of a decision — and determining how they balance out overall.