LNAT - Law National Aptitude Evaluating Argument Strengths Questions and Answers

Question 1

A local council member argues: 'If we approve the construction of this skate park, it will attract loiterers. This will inevitably lead to an increase in petty crime, like graffiti and vandalism. Before we know it, our peaceful town will become a hotspot for more serious criminal activity, and property values will plummet. Therefore, we must reject the skate park proposal to protect our community.' Which of the following describes the primary flaw in the council member's reasoning?

Accepted Answer

It assumes that the initial action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly negative consequences without sufficient evidence.

Answer

The correct answer identifies the slippery slope fallacy. The argument posits that a relatively minor first step (building a skate park) will trigger an inevitable chain of increasingly negative events without providing any evidence to prove that this sequence of events is unavoidable or even likely.

Question 2

A company spokesperson, defending their new brand of 'Vita-Boost' orange juice, states: 'Claims that our product is unhealthy are unfounded. Last year, our company donated over £1 million to children's health charities, demonstrating our deep and unwavering commitment to public wellbeing. A company this dedicated to health would not produce an unhealthy product.' What is the most significant weakness in the spokesperson's argument?

Accepted Answer

The evidence provided (charitable donations) is irrelevant to the product's actual health qualities.

Answer

The core of the argument rests on the company's charitable actions. However, donating to health charities is entirely separate from the nutritional content or health impact of their orange juice. The evidence presented is not logically relevant to the conclusion being made about the product itself, which is the most significant flaw in the reasoning.

Question 3

A study of a large city found a strong positive correlation between the number of ice cream shops and the number of reported burglaries. The study's author concludes: 'The proliferation of ice cream shops is contributing to a rise in the city's crime rate, likely because they create late-night gathering spots for criminals.' Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously weaken the author's conclusion?

Accepted Answer

Both ice cream sales and burglary rates are known to increase significantly during warmer summer months.

Answer

This option weakens the argument by introducing a plausible third variable (warm weather) that could be the cause of both the increase in ice cream sales and the increase in burglaries (e.g., more people are out, windows are left open). This undermines the author's causal conclusion that one causes the other by showing they may both be effects of a common cause, highlighting the classic 'correlation does not equal causation' flaw.

Question 4

An opponent of a proposed law requiring mandatory bicycle helmets argues: 'Forcing cyclists to wear helmets is like forcing restaurant patrons to wear bibs. While a bib might prevent a small stain on a shirt, it's an intrusive overreach that treats adults like children. Both measures impose a requirement to mitigate a minor, personal risk, and neither is the proper role of government.' Which of the following points out the most significant flaw in the argument's use of analogy?

Accepted Answer

The analogy compares the minor consequence of a food stain with the potentially severe consequence of a head injury.

Answer

A strong analogy relies on the two situations being compared being similar in relevant ways. This argument is flawed because it equates a food stain (a minor, easily remedied inconvenience) with a traumatic head injury (a potentially life-altering or fatal event). The vast disparity in the severity of the potential consequences makes the analogy weak and misleading.

Question 5

A marketing director argues: 'To increase our company's profits this year, we must significantly increase our advertising budget. A larger budget will allow us to run more commercials on prime-time television, reaching a wider audience and boosting our sales.' Which of the following is a necessary assumption underlying the marketing director's argument?

Accepted Answer

The cost of the increased advertising will not be greater than the additional profit generated from increased sales.

Answer

The argument's ultimate goal is to increase *profits*. Profit is calculated as revenue minus costs. The argument focuses only on increasing revenue (through boosted sales) but ignores the cost side of the equation (the increased advertising budget). For the conclusion (increased profits) to hold true, it must be assumed that the financial gain from the new sales will outweigh the expense of the new advertising.

LNAT - Law National Aptitude Test Practice Test

LNAT - Law National Aptitude Test Practice Test

LNAT - Law National Aptitude Evaluating Argument Strengths Questions and Answers