CCTST Argument Assessment 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which of the following arguments contains an implicit (unstated) premise?
- All mammals breathe air; dolphins are mammals; therefore dolphins breathe air
- You should eat vegetables because vegetables are healthy (Correct answer)
- If P then Q; P; therefore Q
- Some birds can fly; some birds cannot fly; therefore not all birds fly
Correct answer: You should eat vegetables because vegetables are healthy
The argument 'eat vegetables because they are healthy' assumes an unstated premise that 'you should eat what is healthy,' which is needed to connect the premise to the conclusion.
Question 2: The CCTST assesses critical thinking partly by asking test-takers to evaluate argument quality. Which skill is MOST central to this task?
- Memorizing logical fallacy names
- Identifying whether reasons actually support conclusions and spotting flawed reasoning (Correct answer)
- Writing grammatically correct arguments
- Knowing philosophical theories of truth
Correct answer: Identifying whether reasons actually support conclusions and spotting flawed reasoning
Argument evaluation fundamentally requires judging whether given reasons adequately support the conclusion and detecting errors in reasoning.
Question 3: A slippery slope argument claims: 'If we allow physician-assisted dying in extreme cases, eventually doctors will euthanize patients without consent.' Without supporting evidence, this argument is weak because:
- It appeals to the emotions of the audience too strongly
- It assumes a chain of events will occur without demonstrating why each step would lead to the next (Correct answer)
- It is based on an analogy that doesn't hold
- It commits the naturalistic fallacy
Correct answer: It assumes a chain of events will occur without demonstrating why each step would lead to the next
A slippery slope fallacy asserts a progression of events without showing that each step is likely or that intermediate safeguards couldn't prevent the alleged outcome.
Question 4: When an arguer defines a term in a biased or loaded way to make their conclusion seem inevitable, this is called:
- Equivocation
- Persuasive definition (Correct answer)
- Amphiboly
- Composition fallacy
Correct answer: Persuasive definition
A persuasive definition redefines a term to carry an evaluative bias, steering the audience toward a conclusion by embedding assumptions into the definition.
Question 5: In the argument: 'No true American would support this policy, and since you support it, you are not a true American,' which fallacy is most evident?
- Appeal to popularity
- No true Scotsman fallacy (moving the goalposts) (Correct answer)
- False equivalence
- Bandwagon fallacy
Correct answer: No true Scotsman fallacy (moving the goalposts)
The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy redefines membership in a group to exclude counterexamples, making the original claim unfalsifiable.
Question 6: Which pair of terms correctly describes the two main dimensions for evaluating inductive arguments?
- Valid and sound
- Strong and cogent (Correct answer)
- True and false
- Necessary and sufficient
Correct answer: Strong and cogent
Inductive arguments are evaluated as strong or weak (does evidence support the conclusion?) and cogent or not cogent (strong with true premises).
Question 7: An argument uses the word 'bank' to mean a financial institution in one premise and a riverbank in another premise. This error is called:
- Equivocation (Correct answer)
- Amphiboly
- Accent fallacy
- Composition
Correct answer: Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when the same word is used with two different meanings in the same argument, making the reasoning invalid.
CCTST Argument Assessment 4
Which of the following arguments contains an implicit (unstated) premise?