LNAT Argument Evaluation 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A law professor argues: 'Strict liability is justified for product defects because it incentivizes manufacturers to prioritize safety.' Which assumption underlies this argument?
- Manufacturers always act in good faith
- The threat of liability actually influences manufacturer behaviour (Correct answer)
- Consumers cannot assess product risks themselves
- Courts are efficient at resolving product liability claims
Correct answer: The threat of liability actually influences manufacturer behaviour
The incentive argument only works if liability threats genuinely alter corporate decision-making.
Question 2: Which of the following is an example of a 'slippery slope' argument?
- If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will demand the right to marry animals (Correct answer)
- Murder is wrong because it violates the sanctity of life
- Taxes should be lower because the economy performs better with less government intervention
- We should protect free speech even for unpopular views
Correct answer: If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will demand the right to marry animals
A slippery slope claims an initial step inevitably leads to extreme consequences without justifying the chain of causation.
Question 3: When evaluating an argument, 'relevance' refers to:
- Whether the premises are factually true
- Whether the premises actually bear on the truth of the conclusion (Correct answer)
- Whether the conclusion is morally acceptable
- Whether the argument uses formal logical notation
Correct answer: Whether the premises actually bear on the truth of the conclusion
A relevant premise is one that genuinely increases or decreases the probability of the conclusion.
Question 4: An opponent responds to a policy proposal by arguing against an extreme version of it that was never proposed. This is a:
- Ad hominem
- Red herring
- Straw man (Correct answer)
- Appeal to tradition
Correct answer: Straw man
A straw man misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to attack.
Question 5: Which of the following most effectively identifies a flaw in this argument: 'Ancient Romans used gladiatorial combat to entertain the public, so modern entertainment violence must be acceptable'?
- Romans did not have television
- Historical practice does not establish moral acceptability; this is an appeal to tradition (Correct answer)
- Entertainment preferences vary across cultures
- The Romans eventually abolished gladiatorial combat
Correct answer: Historical practice does not establish moral acceptability; this is an appeal to tradition
Deriving moral acceptability from historical precedent commits the appeal-to-tradition fallacy.
Question 6: An argument's conclusion states: 'Governments should ban sugary drinks.' Which of the following premises would make this argument deductively valid if added?
- Sugary drinks taste good to many people
- Governments should ban all products that contribute to preventable disease, and sugary drinks contribute to preventable disease (Correct answer)
- Many countries have implemented sugar taxes
- Obesity rates have risen over the past 30 years
Correct answer: Governments should ban all products that contribute to preventable disease, and sugary drinks contribute to preventable disease
This premise, combined with the factual claim about sugary drinks, logically entails the conclusion via modus ponens.
Question 7: Which of the following best describes 'argument by analogy'?
- Arguing that because two things share one property, they share all properties
- Using a comparison between cases to support a conclusion about the target case (Correct answer)
- Claiming authority through comparison to experts
- Reducing a complex argument to a simple either/or choice
Correct answer: Using a comparison between cases to support a conclusion about the target case
Argument by analogy draws on relevant similarities between cases to support an inference about the case under examination.
LNAT Argument Evaluation 4
A law professor argues: 'Strict liability is justified for product defects because it incentivizes manufacturers to prioritize safety.' Which assumption underlies this argument?