LNAT Formulating Persuasive Arguments 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An essay argues: 'Either we abolish the minimum wage entirely or workers will always be exploited.' What fallacy is present?
- Slippery slope
- False dichotomy (Correct answer)
- Circular reasoning
- Hasty generalization
Correct answer: False dichotomy
False dichotomy presents only two options when other possibilities exist, such as raising, indexing, or reforming the minimum wage rather than abolishing it.
Question 2: Which of the following is the strongest counter-argument to the claim 'Jury trials should be abolished because juries are emotionally biased'?
- Juries have existed for centuries, so they must be good
- Emotional bias can be mitigated through juror selection, instructions, and deliberation, while juries also provide democratic legitimacy (Correct answer)
- Judges are also human and can be biased
- Abolishing juries would save court time and resources
Correct answer: Emotional bias can be mitigated through juror selection, instructions, and deliberation, while juries also provide democratic legitimacy
This response directly addresses the bias concern by showing it can be managed, then adds the positive value juries provide — a two-pronged rebuttal.
Question 3: Why is it rhetorically effective to use the phrase 'Even if we accept...' in a persuasive argument?
- It signals that you are changing your position
- It shows that your argument succeeds even under the opponent's most favorable assumptions (Correct answer)
- It concedes that your argument is weak
- It introduces new empirical evidence
Correct answer: It shows that your argument succeeds even under the opponent's most favorable assumptions
Granting the opponent's premise for the sake of argument and still winning demonstrates that your position is robust regardless of contested factual assumptions.
Question 4: What is 'question-begging' (petitio principii)?
- Asking the audience a rhetorical question to engage them
- Assuming the conclusion within the premises of the argument (Correct answer)
- Questioning the credibility of evidence
- Failing to answer a counterargument
Correct answer: Assuming the conclusion within the premises of the argument
Question-begging embeds the conclusion in the premises, making the argument circular since the conclusion is required to accept the premise.
Question 5: In formulating a persuasive argument about a contested legal issue, which strategy best ensures internal consistency?
- Varying your definition of key terms throughout to adapt to different sub-points
- Maintaining a single coherent definition of key terms and applying it consistently throughout (Correct answer)
- Avoiding definitions entirely to prevent being pinned down
- Using the opponent's definitions to appear fair
Correct answer: Maintaining a single coherent definition of key terms and applying it consistently throughout
Consistent definitions prevent internal contradiction and make the argument harder to undermine by exposing shifts in meaning.
Question 6: Which of the following best describes 'epistemic humility' and how it functions in persuasive argumentation?
- Claiming certainty about every factual assertion to appear authoritative
- Acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge while still advancing a well-supported position (Correct answer)
- Deferring to the audience's views rather than stating your own
- Avoiding any empirical claims to stay purely logical
Correct answer: Acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge while still advancing a well-supported position
Epistemic humility builds credibility by signaling that the writer distinguishes between what is certain and what is probable, avoiding overreach that opponents can exploit.
Question 7: A student writes: 'The government should fund arts education because art is beautiful.' What is the primary weakness of this argument?
- It uses an appeal to emotion without supporting evidence
- The premise ('art is beautiful') does not logically connect to the conclusion ('government should fund it') (Correct answer)
- The argument is too short to be persuasive
- It relies on an ad hominem attack
Correct answer: The premise ('art is beautiful') does not logically connect to the conclusion ('government should fund it')
The argument lacks a warrant: even if art is beautiful, that alone does not establish why the government — rather than private individuals — bears a funding obligation.
LNAT Formulating Persuasive Arguments 5
An essay argues: 'Either we abolish the minimum wage entirely or workers will always be exploited.' What fallacy is present?