AST Logical Reasoning and Evidence 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An argument that moves from specific observations to a general conclusion is called:
- Deductive reasoning
- Inductive reasoning (Correct answer)
- Analogical reasoning
- Causal reasoning
Correct answer: Inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning draws general conclusions from specific observations or examples.
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to general conclusions (bottom-up). Example: 'This swan is white, that swan is white, therefore all swans are white.' The conclusion is probable but not guaranteed. Deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific conclusions (top-down) and, if valid, guarantees the conclusion.
Question 2: Which of the following is an example of a logical fallacy called 'ad hominem'?
- Your argument is invalid because you have no degree. (Correct answer)
- All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal.
- We should adopt this policy because it worked in another country.
- If we allow this, it will lead to total chaos.
Correct answer: Your argument is invalid because you have no degree.
Ad hominem attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Ad hominem (Latin: 'against the person') dismisses an argument by attacking the person who made it rather than addressing the argument's merits. Whether or not someone has a degree is irrelevant to whether their argument is logically sound. Choice D is a slippery slope fallacy.
Question 3: Which type of evidence is considered the most objective in a scientific argument?
- Personal anecdote
- Expert opinion
- Empirical data (Correct answer)
- Historical precedent
Correct answer: Empirical data
Empirical data collected through systematic observation or experiment is the most objective evidence.
Empirical data is gathered through controlled observation, measurement, and experimentation — it can be tested, replicated, and verified. Anecdotes are individual stories (not generalizable). Expert opinion is valuable but subjective. Historical precedent can be selective. Empirical evidence forms the backbone of scientific reasoning.
Question 4: If the conclusion of an argument must be true whenever its premises are true, the argument is:
- Inductive
- Invalid
- Deductively valid (Correct answer)
- Analogical
Correct answer: Deductively valid
A deductively valid argument guarantees the conclusion if all premises are true.
A deductively valid argument has a structure where IF all premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true — there is no way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This is distinct from soundness (valid + actually true premises). Inductive arguments offer probable but not guaranteed conclusions.
Question 5: Which statement correctly identifies a counterargument's role in writing?
- It provides evidence for the main claim.
- It acknowledges and refutes an opposing viewpoint. (Correct answer)
- It introduces background information.
- It restates the thesis.
Correct answer: It acknowledges and refutes an opposing viewpoint.
A counterargument acknowledges a conflicting view and then responds to or refutes it, strengthening the essay.
A counterargument strengthens persuasive writing by showing the author understands opposing views and can respond to them. Structure: (1) Acknowledge the opposing view, (2) Concede any valid points, (3) Rebut with evidence. Ignoring counterarguments makes an argument appear one-sided and weaker.
Question 6: The logical fallacy that assumes because two events occurred in sequence, the first caused the second, is called:
- Circular reasoning
- False dichotomy
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Correct answer)
- Straw man
Correct answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc incorrectly concludes that correlation in time proves causation.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') assumes that because B followed A, A must have caused B. Example: 'I wore my lucky socks; we won the game — my socks caused the win.' Correlation (events happening together or in sequence) does not establish causation.
AST Logical Reasoning and Evidence 1
An argument that moves from specific observations to a general conclusion is called: