LNAT Technical Skills & Application 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: In the context of LNAT argument analysis, a 'straw man' fallacy occurs when:
- A weak authority is cited to support a claim
- An opponent's position is misrepresented to make it easier to attack (Correct answer)
- A general conclusion is drawn from too few examples
- An emotional appeal substitutes for logical reasoning
Correct answer: An opponent's position is misrepresented to make it easier to attack
The straw man fallacy involves distorting or exaggerating an opposing argument so it can be more easily refuted.
Question 2: A researcher wants to determine whether a new drug reduces blood pressure. She randomly assigns 500 patients to receive the drug and 500 to receive a placebo. This design is best described as:
- A case study
- An observational cohort study
- A randomized controlled trial (Correct answer)
- A cross-sectional survey
Correct answer: A randomized controlled trial
Random assignment to treatment and control groups defines a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard for causal inference.
Question 3: A passage asserts: 'No one has proved that free trade harms domestic workers, so it must be beneficial.' This is an example of:
- Affirming the consequent
- Appeal to ignorance (argument from ignorance) (Correct answer)
- False dilemma
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Correct answer: Appeal to ignorance (argument from ignorance)
An appeal to ignorance treats the absence of disproof as positive proof of the opposite claim.
Question 4: Under the rule in Pepper v Hart [1993], courts may refer to Hansard when:
- The statutory language is clear and unambiguous
- The legislation is a consolidation Act
- The statutory provision is ambiguous and the ministerial statement clearly covers the point (Correct answer)
- The court wishes to verify the enactment date
Correct answer: The statutory provision is ambiguous and the ministerial statement clearly covers the point
Pepper v Hart allows reference to Hansard only where the statutory language is ambiguous and there is a clear ministerial statement addressing the ambiguity.
Question 5: An argument proceeds: 'Crime fell after the new policy was introduced. Therefore the policy caused the reduction in crime.' This reasoning is vulnerable to which objection?
- False analogy
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Correct answer)
- Circular reasoning
- Appeal to authority
Correct answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') wrongly infers causation from temporal sequence alone.
Question 6: A LNAT passage presents both sides of the debate on capital punishment but ends with 'ultimately, the evidence favors retention.' The passage structure is best described as:
- Purely descriptive
- Discursive with a stated conclusion (Correct answer)
- Polemical
- Analytical without evaluation
Correct answer: Discursive with a stated conclusion
A discursive passage presents multiple perspectives but ultimately adopts a position, distinguishing it from a purely neutral or polemical text.
Question 7: Which of the following is a valid deductive argument?
- Most lawyers work long hours; Jane works long hours; therefore Jane is a lawyer
- All torts require a duty of care; negligence is a tort; therefore negligence requires a duty of care (Correct answer)
- Many contracts are breached; this contract was breached; therefore this is a common contract
- Some judges are strict; this judge is strict; therefore all judges are strict
Correct answer: All torts require a duty of care; negligence is a tort; therefore negligence requires a duty of care
This is a valid syllogism: the conclusion follows necessarily from premises that cover all instances of the relevant category.
LNAT Technical Skills & Application 4
In the context of LNAT argument analysis, a 'straw man' fallacy occurs when: