Logical Reason Question Stems Flashcards
(20 cards)
Of the following, which one most accurately expresses the main point of the argument.
Decide on what we think is the conclusion within the argument, then find the answer that best represents that understanding. The correct answer will be predictable and requires little inference work. Do not be critical of the argument reasoning.
The part about X figures in the argument in which of the following ways?
Decide on the role played by the part (X) in question that best represents that understanding. A component’s role is defined by how it relates to the main point. The correct answer will be predictable and requires little inference work. Do not be critical of the argument reasoning.
The argument’s reasoning is questionable because the argument…
The question directly asks us what is wrong with the argument. Make sure to think about the argument critically before moving on. The correct answer will be predictable and not worded as you might expect.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Figure out what is wrong with the argument, then select the answer that exposes that flaw. Tempting wrong answers will relate to the conclusion or the support, but not the problem that exists between them. Remember to treat each answer choice as true.
Each of the following, if true, would strengthen the argument EXCEPT:
Figure out what’s wrong with the argument, then eliminate answers that help fix that issue. The right answer may or may not weaken the argument- it might actually have no impact on the argument. There are four wrong answers that will strengthen the support and conclusion (eliminate these answers first!).
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the psychologist’s argument depends?
Start by figuring out what is wrong with the argument. The key term is “depends.” That does not mean the right answer needs to be important in addressing the argument flaw. It means that the answer is something that needs to be true in order for the argument to work.
Each of the following describes a flaw in the game show host’s reasoning EXCEPT:
Per this question stem, we know that there are going to be a lot of issues between the support and the conclusion. Get as clear a sense as possible of the problems in that relationship before moving on to the answer choices. Eliminate four answers that best describe the problems, and select the answer that remains.
Which one of the following arguments contains a flaw in reasoning that is similar to the one in the argument above?
This requires more work, so allow extra time. Start by figuring out what is wrong with the argument. Then eliminate answers that either reach a very different type on conclusion, use different types of support, or seem to have different problems. Confirm the correct answer by matching conclusions, support, and reasoning issues.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
To strengthen an argument, first pinpoint the author’s main conclusion. Then, analyze the reasons given and look for any gaps or assumptions in the logic. Finally, choose the answer that best fills those gaps, adds more evidence, or removes weaknesses, making the conclusion more likely to be true.
The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that of which one of the following arguments.
Deconstruct: Break down the original argument into its core components: premises, conclusion, and assumptions.
Compare: Carefully compare each answer choice’s structure and reasoning to the original.
Match: Select the answer that mirrors the original’s logical pattern, even if the topic is different.
X’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
your task is to find the logical flaw in X’s argument. Choose the answer that best describes the error in reasoning that weakens X’s argument
Causation/correlation
This is an important type of overlooked possibility, in which the arguer takes two things that happen at the same time (correlation) and concludes that one of those things caused the other (causation). The arguer overlooks two important possibilities: 1) a third, unaccounted-for thing could actually be the cause, and 2) the cause-and-effect could actually be in the reverse order of what the arguer believes. Example: Last summer, ice cream sales decreased while homicide rates more than doubled in this region. We should look into selling more ice cream in order to keep people safer.
Sampling
The arguer draws a general conclusion based on what’s true about an inappropriate or biased sample. Example: Everyone I know wants to quit their job, so this country is headed for an employment crisis.
Ad hominem
The arguer attacks another arguer instead of the argument itself. The identity or motives of an arguer don’t affect the validity of that person’s argument. Example: My doctor tells me it’s bad for your lungs to smoke cigarettes, but I know he’s lying. I saw him furtively smoking a cigarette the other day.
Quantity versus percent
The arguer treats quantities and percents of something as if they’re interchangeable, but percents by themselves don’t tell you anything about actual numbers. Example: 10% of the people with Disease X died last year, whereas 50% of the people with Disease Y died last year. Clearly, Disease Y is hurting our population growth more than Disease X is. (But what if 1,000,000 people had Disease X and only 4 people had Disease Y?)
Lack of evidence as proof
The arguer takes a lack of evidence for a conclusion as if that conclusion is definitely wrong. Also known as taking an absence of evidence for “evidence of absence”. Example: Alien life has never been discovered, so it’s clear that alien life doesn’t exist.
False dichotomy
The arguer acts like there are only two choices, when in fact it isn’t an “either/or” situation. Example: If you’re not with us, then you’re against us. The arguer is overlooking the possibility that someone could remain neutral.
Possible vs. certain
The speaker assumes that because something is possible, then it’ll happen. Example: Last year we didn’t have enough budget money for employee raises, but this year there’s plenty of money in the budget. So, it’s clear that the company will give out raises this year.
Circular reasoning
Also known as “begging the question”, circular reasoning is when the arguer assumes that his or her conclusion is already true when attempting to prove that same conclusion. Example: Duplicity is an unattractive characteristic, since it’s repulsive to lie and deceive.
Equivocation
The arguer uses a potentially ambiguous term in more than one sense and consequently misleads the reader. Example: A feather is light, and what’s light can’t be dark, so a feather can’t be dark.
