ISAT - International Student Admissions Test International Student Admissions Argument Evaluation and Flaws 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A school board member claims: 'Our rival school introduced a mentoring programme and their graduation rates rose by 12%. We should introduce the same programme to achieve the same result.' What is the primary flaw in this reasoning?
- The argument commits an ad hominem attack on the rival school
- The argument assumes that what worked in one context will produce identical results in a different context (Correct answer)
- The argument uses emotional language to manipulate the audience
- The argument ignores the cost of implementing a mentoring programme
Correct answer: The argument assumes that what worked in one context will produce identical results in a different context
The argument falsely assumes that because a programme produced a specific outcome in one school, it will produce the same outcome elsewhere, ignoring differences in student demographics, resources, and culture. This is a false analogy or 'what works there will work here' fallacy.
Question 2: A campaigner argues: 'Either we increase university fees or the quality of education will collapse entirely. We must not let quality collapse, so we have no choice but to raise fees.' What logical flaw does this argument contain?
- Circular reasoning, because the conclusion restates the premise
- A false dilemma, because it presents only two options when others may exist (Correct answer)
- An appeal to authority, because it relies on unnamed experts
- Post hoc reasoning, because it confuses sequence with causation
Correct answer: A false dilemma, because it presents only two options when others may exist
The argument presents only two outcomes — raise fees or education collapses — ignoring other possibilities such as cutting administrative costs, seeking government grants, or restructuring programmes. This is a false dilemma (false dichotomy) fallacy.
Question 3: A health report states: 'Countries that consume more chocolate per capita win more Nobel Prizes per capita. Therefore, eating more chocolate makes people smarter.' What is the best evaluation of this argument?
- It is valid because the data comes from an official health report
- It correctly identifies chocolate as a cause of improved cognitive function
- It confuses correlation with causation and ignores alternative explanations (Correct answer)
- It is a sound argument because it is based on statistical evidence
Correct answer: It confuses correlation with causation and ignores alternative explanations
A statistical correlation between two variables does not establish that one causes the other. Both higher chocolate consumption and more Nobel Prizes could be explained by a third factor, such as national wealth. The argument commits the correlation-equals-causation fallacy.
Question 4: A university spokesperson says: 'Our most famous alumnus, a celebrated film director, has publicly stated that our new admission policy is fair. His view should settle the debate.' What flaw is present in this argument?
- The argument is a valid appeal to relevant expertise
- The argument appeals to an authority whose fame is in an unrelated field, making the endorsement irrelevant (Correct answer)
- The argument commits a straw man by misrepresenting opponents of the policy
- The argument is a slippery slope because it predicts extreme future consequences
Correct answer: The argument appeals to an authority whose fame is in an unrelated field, making the endorsement irrelevant
The film director has expertise in cinema, not admissions policy or educational fairness. Citing a celebrity in an unrelated domain as a definitive authority is an appeal to irrelevant authority fallacy.
Question 5: 'Students who study abroad for a semester consistently report higher satisfaction with their university experience. We should therefore require all students to study abroad.' Which of the following best identifies the flaw in this argument?
- It correctly concludes that mandatory study abroad will satisfy all students
- It assumes that a policy beneficial for self-selected volunteers will produce the same outcome when imposed on everyone (Correct answer)
- It relies on a false dilemma between studying abroad and staying home
- It commits circular reasoning by using satisfaction to define a good experience
Correct answer: It assumes that a policy beneficial for self-selected volunteers will produce the same outcome when imposed on everyone
Students who voluntarily choose to study abroad may be more motivated, financially able, or adventurous — making them a biased sample. Assuming a mandatory policy will replicate these results ignores that the group opting in differs significantly from all students.
Question 6: A politician argues: 'My opponent has received donations from a pharmaceutical company, so his proposal to expand healthcare access cannot be trusted and should be rejected.' What argumentative flaw does this illustrate?
- Slippery slope, because it predicts harmful future consequences from the proposal
- Ad hominem, because it attacks the opponent's character or associations rather than the merits of the proposal (Correct answer)
- Hasty generalisation, because it draws a broad conclusion from a single donation
- Appeal to tradition, because it prefers the existing healthcare system
Correct answer: Ad hominem, because it attacks the opponent's character or associations rather than the merits of the proposal
Instead of addressing whether the healthcare proposal is good or bad on its own merits, the argument attacks the credibility of the person making it by pointing to his funding source. This is an ad hominem ('against the person') fallacy.
ISAT - International Student Admissions Test International Student Admissions Argument Evaluation and Flaws 1
A school board member claims: 'Our rival school introduced a mentoring programme and their graduation rates rose by 12%.
We should introduce the same programme to achieve the same result.' What is the primary flaw in this reasoning?