Critical Thinking and Arguments Flashcards

A hospital administrator states: 'We recently installed hand sanitiser dispensers at the entrance of every ward. Over the following three months, we observed a 20% reduction in the rate of hospital-acquired infections compared to the three months prior. Therefore, the new dispensers are the cause of this improved patient safety.' Which of the following, if true, would most weaken this argument?

Answer: The hospital also implemented a mandatory staff hand-washing training program at the same time the dispensers were installed.

The correct answer weakens the argument by introducing a confounding variable. If a mandatory hand-washing program was started at the same time, it is impossible to attribute the reduction in infections solely to the new dispensers. This alternative explanation challenges the administrator's direct causal link.

A medical researcher is presenting their findings: 'Our study followed 500 patients with a history of migraines. We found that every patient who adopted a gluten-free diet reported a decrease in migraine frequency. Therefore, we conclude that a gluten-free diet is an effective treatment for reducing migraine frequency in all patients.' Which type of reasoning is primarily used to reach this conclusion?

Answer: Inductive Reasoning

This is an example of inductive reasoning. The researcher is moving from specific observations (500 patients in the study) to a broad generalization (all patients). Inductive reasoning creates a probable conclusion based on evidence, but it does not guarantee the conclusion's truth in all cases, unlike deductive reasoning.

A senior doctor advises a junior colleague: 'You should prescribe the new medication, 'Cardiocure,' for Mr. Smith's heart condition. It's the most recently approved drug on the market, so it's bound to be the most effective option available.' The senior doctor's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

Answer: The newest medication available is always the most effective treatment.

The argument leaps from the premise ('Cardiocure' is the newest drug) to the conclusion (it is the most effective). This leap only works if one assumes that newness is a direct indicator of effectiveness. This unstated belief is the core assumption of the argument.

In a debate about public health policy, one speaker argues, 'We must increase funding for preventative health screenings.' Their opponent replies, 'So you're saying we should bankrupt our healthcare system by throwing money at endless tests while ignoring patients who are currently sick and in need of immediate treatment? That's irresponsible.' The opponent's response is an example of which logical fallacy?

Answer: Straw Man

The opponent is using a 'Straw Man' fallacy. They are not addressing the actual argument (increasing funding for preventative screenings). Instead, they are misrepresenting and exaggerating it into an extreme and easy-to-attack position (bankrupting the system, ignoring all sick patients) and then arguing against that distorted version.

A research team hypothesises that a new mindfulness app can reduce stress levels in medical students. They conduct a study where one group uses the app for 15 minutes daily for a month, and a control group does not. Which of the following findings would most strongly support their hypothesis?

Answer: The app group showed a statistically significant decrease in cortisol (a stress hormone) levels, while the control group showed no change.

This finding provides the strongest support because it uses a measurable, objective biological marker (cortisol) to demonstrate a physiological change directly related to stress. The fact that the control group showed no change isolates the app as the likely cause of the decrease, strengthening the causal link proposed in the hypothesis.

Argument: 'Allergic reactions are a type of immune response. Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction. Therefore, anaphylaxis is a type of immune response.' Which of the following best describes this argument?

Answer: A valid deductive argument where the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

This is a classic example of a valid deductive argument, specifically a categorical syllogism. If the two premises ('All A are B' and 'C is a type of A') are true, the conclusion ('C is a type of B') must necessarily be true. The conclusion logically and inescapably follows from the given statements.