LNAT Argument Evaluation 2

Question 1

A politician argues: 'Crime rates fell after we increased police funding, so the funding caused the drop.' Which flaw best describes this reasoning?

Accepted Answer

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Answer

Assuming causation from mere temporal sequence is the post hoc fallacy.

Question 2

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument that banning fast food advertising reduces childhood obesity?

Accepted Answer

Countries with advertising bans show lower childhood obesity rates than comparable countries without bans

Answer

Comparative evidence from countries with and without the ban directly supports the causal claim.

Question 3

An argument concludes that all swans are white because every swan ever observed has been white. This is an example of:

Accepted Answer

Inductive reasoning with a known counterexample risk

Answer

The argument is inductive and could be falsified by a single counterexample, as indeed occurred when black swans were discovered.

Question 4

Which statement best describes the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?

Accepted Answer

A sound argument has true premises; a valid argument need not

Answer

Validity means the conclusion follows from the premises; soundness additionally requires the premises to be true.

Question 5

A commentator says: 'You can't trust Jane's views on tax policy because she once evaded taxes.' This is an example of:

Accepted Answer

Ad hominem (abusive)

Answer

Attacking the person's character rather than their argument is an abusive ad hominem.

LNAT Practice Test