LNAT Critical Analysis 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A politician states: 'Crime rates fell every year I was in office, proving my policies worked.' What is the primary flaw in this reasoning?
- The politician ignores inflation
- Correlation is mistaken for causation (Correct answer)
- The sample size is too small
- The argument relies on anecdotal evidence
Correct answer: Correlation is mistaken for causation
Falling crime rates during a tenure does not prove the politician's policies caused the decline, as many other factors could be responsible.
Question 2: Which of the following best describes a 'straw man' fallacy?
- Attacking the character of an opponent rather than their argument
- Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack (Correct answer)
- Appealing to the emotions of the audience instead of logic
- Using a popular opinion as proof of truth
Correct answer: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack
A straw man fallacy involves distorting or exaggerating an opponent's argument to make it easier to refute.
Question 3: A study claims that people who eat breakfast daily earn higher salaries. A newspaper headline reads: 'Eating Breakfast Makes You Richer.' What error has the newspaper made?
- Overgeneralizing from a single case
- Inferring causation from correlation (Correct answer)
- Committing an appeal to authority
- Using a false dichotomy
Correct answer: Inferring causation from correlation
The newspaper wrongly implies breakfast causes higher salaries, when the study only shows an association that could be explained by other variables.
Question 4: An arguer claims: 'Either you support this new law or you are against public safety.' This is an example of which fallacy?
- Ad hominem
- Slippery slope
- False dichotomy (Correct answer)
- Circular reasoning
Correct answer: False dichotomy
The argument presents only two options when in reality there are more nuanced positions possible.
Question 5: A passage argues that because medieval scholars believed the Earth was flat, people today should question scientific consensus. Which principle best counters this argument?
- Appeals to tradition are always valid in legal reasoning
- Past errors in belief do not invalidate the current scientific method (Correct answer)
- Scientific consensus has never changed historically
- Medieval scholars had less access to evidence than modern ones
Correct answer: Past errors in belief do not invalidate the current scientific method
The fact that past beliefs were wrong does not mean current well-evidenced consensus is similarly flawed; the argument conflates historical error with perpetual doubt.
Question 6: Which of the following is the strongest counterargument to: 'We should not legalize marijuana because it is a gateway drug'?
- Many people use marijuana recreationally without harm
- The gateway drug claim lacks robust empirical support and ignores social factors (Correct answer)
- Other legal substances can also be misused
- Criminalization costs taxpayers money
Correct answer: The gateway drug claim lacks robust empirical support and ignores social factors
Challenging the empirical basis and causal mechanism of the gateway claim is the most direct and logically strong response.
Question 7: In evaluating an argument's validity, which question is most important to ask?
- Does the conclusion follow necessarily from the premises if they are true? (Correct answer)
- Is the conclusion one that most people agree with?
- Was the argument made by a qualified expert?
- Does the argument use formal academic language?
Correct answer: Does the conclusion follow necessarily from the premises if they are true?
Validity concerns the logical relationship between premises and conclusion, not the popularity or source of the argument.
LNAT Critical Analysis 2
A politician states: 'Crime rates fell every year I was in office, proving my policies worked.' What is the primary flaw in this reasoning?