Inference Skills Flashcards

A passage states that freedom of speech protects unpopular opinions. A student concludes it therefore protects all speech without exception. This inference is:

Answer: Invalid because protecting unpopular opinions does not mean there are no limits

Protecting a category of speech does not eliminate all possible limits; the inference over-extends the passage's claim.

A judge rules that a defendant's prior conviction is inadmissible. The prosecutor argues the jury should still consider it. The prosecutor's argument is:

Answer: Invalid because an inadmissibility ruling legally bars the evidence from consideration

Once a judge rules evidence inadmissible, it cannot legally be put before or considered by the jury.

Passage: 'Countries with stricter gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths.' A commentator concludes that strict gun laws cause fewer gun deaths. Which response best challenges this?

Answer: Stricter laws and fewer deaths may both result from underlying cultural factors

A third variable—such as cultural attitudes toward violence—could explain both strict laws and fewer deaths without one causing the other.

A legislator says: 'We should ban X because it has not been proven safe.' The logical problem with this argument is:

Answer: It shifts the burden of proof: absence of safety proof is not proof of danger

Requiring proof of safety rather than proof of danger reverses the standard burden of proof.

Two witnesses give contradictory accounts of the same event. A juror concludes that both must be lying. This inference is:

Answer: Flawed because contradiction is also consistent with honest error or differing perspectives

Contradictory accounts can arise from honest mistakes, perception differences, or memory failures, not only from lying.

A statute bans 'vehicles in the park' and a court previously ruled it covers motorcycles. An officer now wants to apply it to a child's toy car. Which reasoning method best supports the officer?

Answer: Argument by analogy: toy cars share vehicle features the statute targets

Analogical reasoning applies an established ruling to a new case by identifying shared relevant characteristics.

A passage argues that capital punishment deters crime because crime fell after executions were reinstated. A critic replies that crime also fell in states that abolished capital punishment. This response:

Answer: Undermines the causal claim by showing crime fell regardless of punishment policy

If crime fell in states both with and without capital punishment, the punishment policy is unlikely to explain the trend.