Technical Skills & Application Flashcards
7 cards from real LNAT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Technical Skills & Application flashcards as text
In the context of LNAT argument analysis, a 'straw man' fallacy occurs when:
Answer: An opponent's position is misrepresented to make it easier to attack
The straw man fallacy involves distorting or exaggerating an opposing argument so it can be more easily refuted.
A researcher wants to determine whether a new drug reduces blood pressure. She randomly assigns 500 patients to receive the drug and 500 to receive a placebo. This design is best described as:
Answer: A randomized controlled trial
Random assignment to treatment and control groups defines a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard for causal inference.
A passage asserts: 'No one has proved that free trade harms domestic workers, so it must be beneficial.' This is an example of:
Answer: Appeal to ignorance (argument from ignorance)
An appeal to ignorance treats the absence of disproof as positive proof of the opposite claim.
Under the rule in Pepper v Hart [1993], courts may refer to Hansard when:
Answer: The statutory provision is ambiguous and the ministerial statement clearly covers the point
Pepper v Hart allows reference to Hansard only where the statutory language is ambiguous and there is a clear ministerial statement addressing the ambiguity.
An argument proceeds: 'Crime fell after the new policy was introduced. Therefore the policy caused the reduction in crime.' This reasoning is vulnerable to which objection?
Answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') wrongly infers causation from temporal sequence alone.
A LNAT passage presents both sides of the debate on capital punishment but ends with 'ultimately, the evidence favors retention.' The passage structure is best described as:
Answer: Discursive with a stated conclusion
A discursive passage presents multiple perspectives but ultimately adopts a position, distinguishing it from a purely neutral or polemical text.
Which of the following is a valid deductive argument?
Answer: All torts require a duty of care; negligence is a tort; therefore negligence requires a duty of care
This is a valid syllogism: the conclusion follows necessarily from premises that cover all instances of the relevant category.