Critical Evaluation of Arguments Flashcards

Which of the following most accurately describes a 'strong' inductive argument?

Answer: One whose premises, if true, make the conclusion highly probable but not certain

Inductive arguments establish probability, not certainty; a strong one makes the conclusion very likely given true premises.

An operations leader presents data showing that plant downtime fell 30% after installing new equipment. A skeptic asks: 'Were there any other changes during that period?' The skeptic is trying to identify:

Answer: Potential confounding variables that could alternatively explain the downtime reduction

Confounding variables are factors other than the one being studied that could explain the observed outcome, undermining causal claims.

A finance team argues: 'We should not enter the European market because one competitor failed there last year.' What is the primary logical weakness?

Answer: The argument draws a general conclusion from a single, possibly unrepresentative case

Generalizing from one data point (one competitor's failure) is a hasty generalization fallacy; many other companies may succeed there.

Which approach best demonstrates critical evaluation rather than acceptance of a business proposal?

Answer: Asking for the assumptions underlying the projected ROI and requesting sensitivity analysis

Challenging the assumptions and stress-testing the projections reflects rigorous critical evaluation of the argument's foundations.

A supply chain manager concludes from three months of data that a new routing algorithm reduces delivery time by 15%. What would most increase confidence in this conclusion?

Answer: Replicating the result across multiple regions over 12 months with a control group using the old algorithm

Longer observation periods, geographic replication, and a control group reduce the chance that the result is a statistical artifact or caused by external factors.

An executive dismisses a negative study about their product by saying, 'That research was funded by our competitor.' This is an example of:

Answer: An ad hominem (or genetic fallacy) that attacks the source rather than the argument's content

While funding sources are worth noting, dismissing findings purely based on origin without addressing the evidence is the genetic fallacy.

A manager reads: 'Companies with diverse leadership teams outperform peers by 35%.' She concludes her company should immediately replace its leadership team with a more diverse one. The most significant flaw in her reasoning is:

Answer: She treats a correlational statistic as a directive for immediate personnel action without considering causality or context

A correlation between diversity and performance does not specify the mechanism or whether replacing existing leaders is the correct intervention, and ignores context-specific factors.