ieGAT Critical Thinking and Argumentation 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An executive argues: 'Our new product launch was a success because sales increased last quarter.' Which of the following most seriously weakens this argument?
- The product was launched in only three markets.
- Overall market sales for all competitors also increased last quarter due to seasonal demand. (Correct answer)
- The marketing budget was higher than in previous quarters.
- Customer satisfaction scores were not measured.
Correct answer: Overall market sales for all competitors also increased last quarter due to seasonal demand.
If all competitors also saw increased sales due to seasonal demand, the rise cannot be attributed specifically to the product launch.
Question 2: Which of the following is an example of a hasty generalization?
- All mammals are warm-blooded; whales are mammals; therefore whales are warm-blooded.
- I met two rude people from City X, so everyone from City X must be rude. (Correct answer)
- If prices rise, demand typically falls, assuming all else is equal.
- The study surveyed 10,000 randomly selected adults to draw its conclusions.
Correct answer: I met two rude people from City X, so everyone from City X must be rude.
Concluding that all people from a city are rude based on only two encounters is a hasty generalization from an insufficient sample.
Question 3: Premise 1: All strategy consultants are strong analytical thinkers. Premise 2: Maria is a strong analytical thinker. What can be validly concluded?
- Maria is a strategy consultant.
- Maria might or might not be a strategy consultant. (Correct answer)
- Maria is not a strategy consultant.
- All strong analytical thinkers become strategy consultants.
Correct answer: Maria might or might not be a strategy consultant.
Being a strong analytical thinker is a necessary condition for strategy consultants but not sufficient; other people can also be strong analytical thinkers.
Question 4: A politician says: 'You are either with us on this policy, or you are against progress.' This statement is an example of which fallacy?
- Ad hominem
- Straw man
- False dichotomy (Correct answer)
- Appeal to authority
Correct answer: False dichotomy
Presenting only two options when more exist is a false dichotomy; one can oppose the specific policy without opposing progress in general.
Question 5: A company report states: 'Employee engagement scores rose 15% after the new wellness program launched. Therefore, the wellness program caused greater engagement.' Which assumption is the argument relying on?
- Engagement scores are the most important metric for company performance.
- No other significant changes occurred in the company during the same period. (Correct answer)
- The wellness program was enjoyed by all employees equally.
- Engagement scores were measured using a standardized tool.
Correct answer: No other significant changes occurred in the company during the same period.
The causal claim requires ruling out confounding factors; if other changes occurred simultaneously, they might explain the increase instead.
Question 6: Read the argument: 'Reducing working hours will decrease productivity. Therefore, we should not reduce working hours.' Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
- Several firms that reduced working hours reported no change in output.
- Research consistently shows that fatigue from overwork reduces output quality and quantity.
- Workers in countries with shorter working weeks report higher job satisfaction.
- A meta-analysis of 50 companies found that productivity fell in 80% of cases after working-hour reductions. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: A meta-analysis of 50 companies found that productivity fell in 80% of cases after working-hour reductions.
Evidence from 80% of companies in a large meta-analysis directly supports the premise that reducing hours decreases productivity.
Question 7: Which of the following best describes the logical structure of this argument? 'Students who study daily perform better on exams. Carlos performs well on exams. Therefore, Carlos studies daily.'
- Valid deductive reasoning
- Affirming the consequent (Correct answer)
- Denying the antecedent
- Modus ponens
Correct answer: Affirming the consequent
The argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent: it wrongly infers the cause from the effect when other causes may produce the same effect.
ieGAT Critical Thinking and Argumentation 1
An executive argues: 'Our new product launch was a success because sales increased last quarter.' Which of the following most seriously weakens this argument?