STAT Evaluating Written Arguments 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An op-ed argues: 'If we allow assisted dying for the terminally ill, soon doctors will euthanise anyone who is inconvenient.' This is an example of:
- A circular argument
- A slippery slope fallacy (Correct answer)
- An appeal to emotion
- A straw man fallacy
Correct answer: A slippery slope fallacy
The argument assumes an inevitable chain of escalating consequences without evidence that each step will follow the previous.
Question 2: A researcher concludes that a new drug is effective because patients reported feeling better after taking it. What is the most important weakness of this evidence?
- The drug may be expensive
- The improvement could be due to the placebo effect rather than the drug (Correct answer)
- The researcher did not consult a statistician
- Patients are not qualified to evaluate medical treatments
Correct answer: The improvement could be due to the placebo effect rather than the drug
Without a control group, it is impossible to determine whether improvement resulted from the drug or from the expectation of improvement.
Question 3: Which question is MOST useful for evaluating the credibility of a source cited in an argument?
- Is the source written in accessible language?
- Does the author have relevant expertise and disclose potential conflicts of interest? (Correct answer)
- Was the source published recently?
- Is the source frequently quoted by others?
Correct answer: Does the author have relevant expertise and disclose potential conflicts of interest?
Expertise ensures the author can assess the evidence accurately, while disclosed conflicts of interest reveal potential bias.
Question 4: Passage: 'All politicians are corrupt. Senator White is a politician. Therefore, Senator White is corrupt.' The conclusion is logically valid. However, the argument may still be unsound because:
- The conclusion does not follow from the premises
- The first premise is a sweeping generalisation that may be false (Correct answer)
- The syllogism uses more than two premises
- The argument appeals to popular opinion
Correct answer: The first premise is a sweeping generalisation that may be false
An argument is sound only if it is both valid and has true premises; the generalisation 'all politicians are corrupt' is almost certainly false.
Question 5: A newspaper editorial claims: 'Real Americans support this policy, so those who oppose it are un-American.' Which rhetorical technique is being used?
- Bandwagon appeal
- Appeal to authority
- In-group/out-group framing (no true Scotsman) (Correct answer)
- Straw man
Correct answer: In-group/out-group framing (no true Scotsman)
The argument defines 'real Americans' as those who agree, dismissing dissenters as not belonging to the group — a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Question 6: Which of the following best identifies the assumption in this argument? 'We should follow the dietary advice of this celebrity trainer because they have an excellent physique.'
- Celebrities are always honest about their habits
- A good physique is proof of nutritional knowledge (Correct answer)
- The trainer eats the same diet they recommend
- Physical appearance is more important than health
Correct answer: A good physique is proof of nutritional knowledge
The argument assumes that looking fit means the trainer understands nutrition, conflating physical appearance with expertise.
Question 7: A public health campaign argues: 'Nine out of ten dentists recommend this toothpaste brand.' Which of the following is the most appropriate critique of this claim?
- Dentists are not scientists, so their opinion is irrelevant
- The claim does not specify how the dentists were selected or what question they were asked (Correct answer)
- One brand cannot be endorsed by that many dentists
- Toothpaste recommendations change frequently
Correct answer: The claim does not specify how the dentists were selected or what question they were asked
Without knowing the sampling method and exact question, the statistic may be misleading or unrepresentative.
STAT Evaluating Written Arguments 4
An op-ed argues: 'If we allow assisted dying for the terminally ill, soon doctors will euthanise anyone who is inconvenient.' This is an example of: