RLA Analyzing Argument Structure 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A writer states: 'Studies show people who eat breakfast perform better at work. Therefore, all employees should be required to eat breakfast.' What logical flaw does this argument contain?
- It relies on a single study
- It jumps from correlation to mandatory policy without justification (Correct answer)
- It ignores the benefits of fasting
- It fails to define 'better performance'
Correct answer: It jumps from correlation to mandatory policy without justification
The argument leaps from a correlation between breakfast and performance to a prescriptive policy requiring all employees to eat breakfast, which is an unjustified logical leap.
Question 2: Which element distinguishes a rebuttal from a counterargument in a formal argument?
- A rebuttal introduces a new claim; a counterargument restates the original
- A counterargument opposes the claim; a rebuttal responds to and refutes that opposition (Correct answer)
- A rebuttal is always emotional; a counterargument is always logical
- A counterargument appears in the conclusion; a rebuttal appears in the introduction
Correct answer: A counterargument opposes the claim; a rebuttal responds to and refutes that opposition
A counterargument presents an opposing view, while a rebuttal directly addresses and attempts to disprove that opposing view.
Question 3: An author argues that a new tax will reduce inequality, citing data from three Scandinavian countries. A critic responds that those countries have unique cultural factors that make comparison invalid. The critic is using which technique?
- Ad hominem attack
- False equivalence
- Challenging the evidence's applicability (Correct answer)
- Straw man fallacy
Correct answer: Challenging the evidence's applicability
The critic questions whether the evidence is applicable to the author's context by pointing out that the cited examples may not transfer due to unique circumstances.
Question 4: Read this claim: 'Either we cut the school budget or students will fail.' This is an example of which reasoning error?
- Hasty generalization
- False dilemma (Correct answer)
- Circular reasoning
- Red herring
Correct answer: False dilemma
A false dilemma presents only two options as if no other possibilities exist, when in reality there may be other solutions besides cutting the budget.
Question 5: Which sentence functions as a warrant in Toulmin's model of argument?
- 'Crime rates in the city rose 15% last year.'
- 'The city should hire more police officers.'
- 'Communities with more officers consistently show lower crime rates.' (Correct answer)
- 'The mayor has not addressed public safety adequately.'
Correct answer: 'Communities with more officers consistently show lower crime rates.'
The warrant is the general principle that connects the evidence to the claim, here asserting that more officers lead to lower crime as a logical bridge.
Question 6: An editorial reads: 'My grandfather smoked his whole life and lived to 95, so smoking can't be that dangerous.' Which fallacy is present?
- Appeal to authority
- Anecdotal evidence used to dismiss statistical data (Correct answer)
- Slippery slope
- Begging the question
Correct answer: Anecdotal evidence used to dismiss statistical data
Using one person's exceptional experience to contradict broad statistical evidence is the anecdotal fallacy, which mistakes an individual case for a general pattern.
Question 7: In an argument, what is the primary purpose of acknowledging the opposing viewpoint before presenting your own?
- To confuse readers about which side is correct
- To establish credibility and show the argument has considered other perspectives (Correct answer)
- To weaken your own argument by introducing doubt
- To meet a minimum word count requirement
Correct answer: To establish credibility and show the argument has considered other perspectives
Acknowledging opposing views demonstrates intellectual honesty and strengthens credibility by showing the writer has engaged with the full complexity of the issue.
RLA Analyzing Argument Structure 2
A writer states: 'Studies show people who eat breakfast perform better at work.
Therefore, all employees should be required to eat breakfast.' What logical flaw does this argument contain?