ieGAT Critical Thinking and Argumentation 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A marketing manager argues: 'Our ad campaign must have worked — brand awareness jumped 20% after we ran it.' Which of the following, if true, most undermines this conclusion?
- The campaign ran for only two weeks.
- A viral news story unrelated to the campaign prominently featured the company during the same period. (Correct answer)
- The campaign was the most expensive in company history.
- Brand awareness was measured by an external research firm.
Correct answer: A viral news story unrelated to the campaign prominently featured the company during the same period.
A viral news story provides an alternative explanation for the awareness increase, undermining the claim that the ad campaign caused it.
Question 2: Which of the following is an example of an appeal to authority used invalidly?
- A cardiologist recommends a specific heart medication.
- A Nobel Prize-winning economist endorses a tax policy based on their research.
- A famous actor endorses a brand of running shoes as superior for athletic performance. (Correct answer)
- A structural engineer certifies that a bridge meets safety standards.
Correct answer: A famous actor endorses a brand of running shoes as superior for athletic performance.
An actor's fame does not qualify them to judge athletic shoe performance; this is an invalid appeal to celebrity rather than relevant expertise.
Question 3: Statement: 'If the economy grows, unemployment falls. The economy has not grown. Therefore, unemployment has not fallen.' What type of reasoning error does this represent?
- Modus tollens
- Modus ponens
- Denying the antecedent (Correct answer)
- Affirming the consequent
Correct answer: Denying the antecedent
Denying the antecedent occurs when someone incorrectly concludes that because the condition is absent, the result must also be absent, ignoring other possible causes.
Question 4: An analyst claims: 'Ice cream sales and drowning rates both peak in summer; therefore, ice cream causes drowning.' This is an example of:
- Straw man fallacy
- Confusing correlation with causation (Correct answer)
- Ad hominem attack
- Circular reasoning
Correct answer: Confusing correlation with causation
Both variables are driven by a third factor (hot weather and increased outdoor activity), not by a causal relationship between ice cream and drowning.
Question 5: Which of the following most accurately identifies a hidden assumption in this argument? 'We should invest in renewable energy because fossil fuel reserves are finite.'
- Fossil fuels are currently more expensive than renewables.
- Finite fossil fuel reserves make renewable energy a worthwhile investment. (Correct answer)
- Renewable energy technology is already mature and cost-effective.
- Governments will subsidize renewable energy projects.
Correct answer: Finite fossil fuel reserves make renewable energy a worthwhile investment.
The argument implicitly assumes that the finiteness of fossil fuels is a sufficient reason to switch investment to renewables, linking the premise to the conclusion.
Question 6: A CEO says: 'Our competitor failed because they expanded too quickly. We must therefore never expand quickly.' Which flaw in reasoning does this illustrate?
- Overgeneralizing from a single case to form a universal rule (Correct answer)
- Correctly applying a lesson learned from industry experience
- Making a valid inductive inference based on sufficient evidence
- Using circular reasoning to justify the existing strategy
Correct answer: Overgeneralizing from a single case to form a universal rule
Drawing a universal rule ('never expand quickly') from one competitor's failure is an overgeneralization; rapid expansion succeeds in many other cases.
Question 7: Evaluate the following argument: 'This investment must be safe because no investor has complained about losses.' What is the primary weakness?
- The argument relies on expert testimony.
- Absence of complaints does not prove safety; investors may be unaware of losses or reluctant to report them. (Correct answer)
- The argument uses anecdotal evidence from too large a sample.
- The premise and conclusion are logically unrelated.
Correct answer: Absence of complaints does not prove safety; investors may be unaware of losses or reluctant to report them.
Silence (absence of evidence) is not evidence of absence; investors may not yet have realized losses or may not report them.
ieGAT Critical Thinking and Argumentation 2
A marketing manager argues: 'Our ad campaign must have worked — brand awareness jumped 20% after we ran it.' Which of the following, if true, most undermines this conclusion?