Argument Evaluation and Flaws Flashcards
7 cards from real ISAT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Argument Evaluation and Flaws flashcards as text
A company claims its product is best because it has won 'awards' but does not specify which awards. What logical problem does this create?
Answer: The claim is vague and unverifiable, weakening the argument
Unspecified or unverifiable evidence cannot be assessed and therefore does not support the conclusion.
Which of the following is the best description of an 'argument from ignorance' (ad ignorantiam)?
Answer: Concluding something is true because it has not been proven false
Ad ignorantiam treats the absence of disproof as proof, which is a logical fallacy.
Two students debate homework. Student A says, 'Homework helps consolidate learning.' Student B replies, 'That's what teachers say because they enjoy making students miserable.' Which flaw does Student B commit?
Answer: Ad hominem (attacking motive rather than the argument)
Dismissing an argument by attributing bad motives to the arguer rather than addressing the argument itself is an ad hominem.
An editorial argues: 'Studies show students who eat breakfast score higher on tests; therefore, schools should provide free breakfast.' Which additional piece of information would most strengthen this argument?
Answer: The association holds even after controlling for socioeconomic status
Controlling for confounders like socioeconomic status strengthens the causal link between breakfast and test scores.
Which of the following is an example of equivocation?
Answer: Using the word 'right' to mean both 'morally correct' and 'legal entitlement' in the same argument
Equivocation exploits ambiguous terms by shifting their meaning mid-argument.
A health authority states: 'No conclusive evidence shows that this supplement is harmful, so it is safe to use.' This is an example of:
Answer: Appeal to ignorance
Concluding safety from the absence of proven harm is an appeal to ignorance.
Which question most directly tests whether a statistical correlation in an argument implies causation?
Answer: Could a third variable explain both the cause and the effect?
Identifying a potential confounding variable is the most direct way to challenge a causal inference from correlation.