LNAT Critical Analysis 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A judge reasons: 'In every similar case this court has ruled in favor of the defendant; therefore, we must rule the same here.' What kind of reasoning is this?
- Deductive reasoning
- Analogical reasoning (Correct answer)
- Inductive reasoning
- Abductive reasoning
Correct answer: Analogical reasoning
The judge is drawing on the similarity between past cases and the current one to justify the conclusion, which is analogical reasoning.
Question 2: Which of the following arguments contains a circular reasoning fallacy?
- The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible (Correct answer)
- You should trust doctors because medicine is complex
- Taxes are necessary to fund public services
- Free speech protects unpopular opinions
Correct answer: The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible
Using the Bible to prove the Bible's truth assumes what it is trying to establish, making it circular.
Question 3: A lawyer argues that since her client donates to charity, he could not have committed fraud. What fallacy does this commit?
- Slippery slope
- Appeal to emotion
- Ad hominem (positive version / tu quoque)
- Irrelevant appeal to character (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Irrelevant appeal to character
Charitable donations are irrelevant to whether someone committed fraud; the argument substitutes character praise for evidence.
Question 4: Which of the following best illustrates the concept of a 'necessary condition'?
- A defendant must intend harm for a crime to be murder in the first degree
- A verdict can only be overturned if new evidence is discovered
- Oxygen is required for fire to burn (Correct answer)
- A contract is valid only if both parties sign it
Correct answer: Oxygen is required for fire to burn
Oxygen is a necessary condition for fire because without it, fire cannot occur, regardless of other factors.
Question 5: A passage states: 'Most violent offenders have consumed alcohol before committing crimes. Therefore, alcohol causes violence.' What is the main weakness of this argument?
- The sample of violent offenders is probably biased
- Correlation between alcohol use and violence does not establish causation (Correct answer)
- The argument ignores that not all alcohol drinkers are violent
- Violent crime statistics are often unreliable
Correct answer: Correlation between alcohol use and violence does not establish causation
The argument assumes that because two things frequently co-occur, one causes the other, ignoring alternative explanations.
Question 6: An editorial argues: 'Since we allow cars despite their danger, we should allow all dangerous activities.' What is wrong with this argument?
- It uses an unfair comparison without addressing differences in risk levels and social benefit (Correct answer)
- Cars are not actually dangerous if driven responsibly
- All dangerous activities should be banned without exception
- The editorial ignores international law on dangerous activities
Correct answer: It uses an unfair comparison without addressing differences in risk levels and social benefit
The argument overgeneralizes from one case without accounting for the relevant differences in context, risk, and societal benefit between cars and other activities.
Question 7: If a valid argument has a false premise, what can we conclude about its conclusion?
- The conclusion must be false
- The conclusion may be true or false (Correct answer)
- The conclusion is irrelevant
- The conclusion is probably true
Correct answer: The conclusion may be true or false
A valid argument guarantees the conclusion is true only if the premises are true; a false premise means the conclusion's truth is uncertain.
LNAT Critical Analysis 3
A judge reasons: 'In every similar case this court has ruled in favor of the defendant; therefore, we must rule the same here.' What kind of reasoning is this?