STAT Argument and Evidence Analysis 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A senator argues against a new tax reform bill by pointing out that its author was once convicted of tax fraud. This is an example of:
- A legitimate credibility concern that defeats the argument
- Ad hominem, attacking the person rather than the policy (Correct answer)
- Appeal to authority used in reverse
- Relevance reasoning based on character evidence
Correct answer: Ad hominem, attacking the person rather than the policy
The author's past does not logically determine whether the bill's content is good or bad policy — this is an ad hominem.
Question 2: A passage presents the following: 'Every student who joined the tutoring program passed the exam. Maria joined the program. Therefore, Maria passed the exam.' This argument is:
- Invalid because we do not know Maria's ability level.
- Valid and sound if the premises are true. (Correct answer)
- An inductive generalization from a sample.
- Circular because passing is assumed in the premises.
Correct answer: Valid and sound if the premises are true.
The argument is a valid deductive syllogism; if both premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.
Question 3: An advocacy group publishes a report showing their charity's program reduced poverty in one village. They conclude the program should be expanded nationally. Which is the strongest critique of this reasoning?
- The group should not be allowed to fund its own research.
- Poverty is too complex to measure accurately.
- A single village may not be representative of the national context. (Correct answer)
- The report was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Correct answer: A single village may not be representative of the national context.
Generalizing from one case to an entire nation ignores local variation and potential confounders specific to that village.
Question 4: A student writes: 'We must lower the voting age because young people deserve a voice.' What is the primary logical issue with this argument?
- It is factually incorrect that young people are excluded.
- It assumes what needs to be proven — that lowering the age grants a meaningful voice. (Correct answer)
- The conclusion is stated before the premise.
- It is an appeal to emotion without any normative claim.
Correct answer: It assumes what needs to be proven — that lowering the age grants a meaningful voice.
Saying they 'deserve a voice' assumes the conclusion (lowering the age achieves this) rather than establishing it.
Question 5: Which of the following is the best example of a counter-argument rather than a rebuttal?
- Pointing out that a statistic in the original argument was misquoted.
- Showing that the original argument's logic contains a non sequitur.
- Offering an alternative explanation that supports a competing conclusion. (Correct answer)
- Demonstrating that the original argument lacks sufficient evidence.
Correct answer: Offering an alternative explanation that supports a competing conclusion.
A counter-argument introduces a new line of reasoning that supports a different conclusion, rather than just attacking the original.
Question 6: A report claims: 'Countries with stricter gun laws have lower gun death rates.' A reader responds: 'But Switzerland has loose laws and low deaths.' This response is best characterized as:
- A decisive refutation of the report's conclusion.
- A cherry-picked counterexample that may not represent the broader trend. (Correct answer)
- An anecdote that proves the report is using flawed data.
- A valid use of comparative evidence.
Correct answer: A cherry-picked counterexample that may not represent the broader trend.
Selecting one exception to challenge a pattern derived from many countries is cherry-picking and does not disprove the general trend.
Question 7: An author states that a policy 'will definitely eliminate unemployment.' Which word signals that scrutiny of this claim is warranted?
- Policy
- Eliminate
- Definitely (Correct answer)
- Unemployment
Correct answer: Definitely
The word 'definitely' asserts absolute certainty about a complex socioeconomic outcome, which is a red flag for an overreaching claim.
STAT Argument and Evidence Analysis 5
A senator argues against a new tax reform bill by pointing out that its author was once convicted of tax fraud.
This is an example of: