CCTST Argument Assessment 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A study finds that students who eat breakfast score higher on tests. A parent concludes: 'To improve my child's test scores, I should make sure they eat breakfast.' This reasoning is best described as:
- Deductively valid
- An inductive inference that may be reasonable but could have confounding factors (Correct answer)
- A clear example of the post hoc fallacy
- An appeal to authority
Correct answer: An inductive inference that may be reasonable but could have confounding factors
The parent's conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference from the data, though correlation does not establish causation and other factors (e.g., family stability) may explain both variables.
Question 2: Which of the following best illustrates the fallacy of 'appeal to ignorance' (argumentum ad ignorantiam)?
- Claiming something is true because a famous person believes it
- Claiming something must be true because no one has proven it false (Correct answer)
- Claiming something is false because it contradicts tradition
- Claiming something is true because many people believe it
Correct answer: Claiming something must be true because no one has proven it false
Appeal to ignorance treats the absence of disproof as sufficient evidence for truth, which is a logical error — lack of evidence against is not evidence for.
Question 3: To identify the 'main conclusion' of a complex argument, a critical thinker should look for:
- The longest sentence in the passage
- The claim that the other statements are intended to support, often signaled by words like 'therefore' or 'thus' (Correct answer)
- The first statement made in the argument
- The statement that contains the most facts
Correct answer: The claim that the other statements are intended to support, often signaled by words like 'therefore' or 'thus'
The conclusion is the claim that all the reasons (premises) are meant to establish, and conclusion indicators like 'therefore,' 'hence,' or 'so' often signal it.
Question 4: An argument is evaluated as 'valid' but 'unsound.' What does this mean?
- The conclusion is probably true, but the argument is too complex to verify
- The logical structure is correct (conclusion follows from premises), but at least one premise is false (Correct answer)
- The premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow from them
- The argument commits a formal fallacy
Correct answer: The logical structure is correct (conclusion follows from premises), but at least one premise is false
A valid but unsound argument has proper logical structure, but one or more of its premises are actually false, so the conclusion may not be true.
Question 5: Which strategy is MOST effective for critically assessing the strength of a causal claim?
- Checking whether the claim is stated confidently
- Considering whether alternative explanations, confounding variables, or reverse causation could account for the observed correlation (Correct answer)
- Verifying that the claim appears in multiple media sources
- Ensuring the claim is made by someone with credentials
Correct answer: Considering whether alternative explanations, confounding variables, or reverse causation could account for the observed correlation
Rigorous causal assessment requires ruling out competing explanations, including confounds, coincidence, and reverse causation, not just accepting correlation.
Question 6: A defense attorney argues: 'My client cannot be guilty of fraud because he volunteers at a food bank every weekend.' This argument is an example of:
- Tu quoque fallacy
- Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)
- Red herring through character evidence used as a non-sequitur
- Both B and C (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Both B and C
Volunteering is irrelevant to whether the defendant committed fraud; the argument redirects attention with character evidence that does not logically address the charge, making it both a red herring and an irrelevant conclusion.
Question 7: A researcher argues that because every culture throughout history has had some form of music, music must fulfill a fundamental biological need. Which best evaluates this argument?
- It is a strong deductive argument because the premise is universal
- It is an inductive argument that is moderately strong but could be weakened if universality is shown to reflect cultural diffusion rather than independent biological drive (Correct answer)
- It commits the naturalistic fallacy by deriving an 'ought' from an 'is'
- It is a cogent argument with no significant weaknesses
Correct answer: It is an inductive argument that is moderately strong but could be weakened if universality is shown to reflect cultural diffusion rather than independent biological drive
The argument is inductive and has some strength, but the inference from universal presence to biological necessity is challenged by the possibility that music spread culturally rather than arising independently from biology.
CCTST Argument Assessment 5
A study finds that students who eat breakfast score higher on tests.
A parent concludes: 'To improve my child's test scores, I should make sure they eat breakfast.' This reasoning is best described as: