Argument Analysis Flashcards
6 cards from real Civil Service Verbal Reasoning Test practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 6 Argument Analysis flashcards as text
Argument: 'This political party has been in power for ten years and crime has risen. The party is responsible for rising crime.' What flaw does this contain?
Answer: It confuses correlation with causation — many factors affect crime rates beyond government policy
Crime rates are affected by economic conditions, social factors, policing, and many other variables. Simply governing during a period of rising crime does not make the party responsible.
Argument: 'Most successful entrepreneurs dropped out of university. Therefore, dropping out of university leads to entrepreneurial success.' What is wrong with this reasoning?
Answer: It ignores the far greater number of university dropouts who did not become successful entrepreneurs
The argument focuses only on successful dropouts, ignoring the many who dropped out without achieving success. This is survivorship bias — only winners are considered.
Argument: 'We have received no complaints about this service, so customers must be satisfied.' What flaw does this commit?
Answer: Absence of complaints does not confirm satisfaction — customers may not bother to complain even if dissatisfied
Many dissatisfied customers simply do not complain — they may leave quietly. Lack of complaints is not positive evidence of satisfaction.
An argument claims: 'Since implementing the new IT system, staff productivity has increased by 12%.' What would BEST help determine if the new system caused the increase?
Answer: Comparing productivity changes in departments that adopted the system against those that did not
Comparing departments that adopted the system with those that did not (a control group comparison) helps isolate the effect of the system from other factors.
Argument: 'Natural products are better than synthetic ones because nature knows best.' What flaw does this reasoning commit?
Answer: Appeal to nature — the assumption that natural things are inherently safe or superior is unjustified
Many natural substances are toxic or harmful, and many synthetic substances are safe and beneficial. 'Natural' does not automatically mean better. This is the appeal to nature fallacy.
Argument: 'If we don't introduce stricter regulations now, companies will continue to pollute unchecked, the environment will be destroyed, and future generations will have no future.' What fallacy does this commit?
Answer: Slippery slope — jumping from a moderate premise to an extreme conclusion without justification
The argument leaps from 'no strict regulations now' to 'no future for humanity' without showing why each step in the chain must inevitably occur. Intermediate outcomes could prevent the extreme.