Logical Reasoning

Question 1

What is Modus Ponens in logical reasoning?

Answer 1

If P, then Q. P is true, therefore Q must be true.

Question 2

What is Modus Tollens in logical reasoning?

Answer 2

If P, then Q. Q is false, therefore P must be false.

Question 3

What are examples of common logical fallacies to watch for?

Answer 3

Ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, slippery slope, and circular reasoning.

Question 4

How do you identify flaws in an argument?

Answer 4

Look for assumptions without evidence, irrelevant points, or false cause-effect links.

Question 5

What are premises in an argument, and how do you identify them?

Answer 5

Premises are statements or facts that support the conclusion. They can often be identified by words like “because,” “since,” “for example,” and “as shown by.”

Question 6

How do you identify the conclusion of an argument?

Answer 6

The conclusion is the main point the author is trying to prove, typically signaled by phrases like “therefore,” “thus,” “consequently,” or “in conclusion.”

Question 7

What is an intermediate conclusion, and how do you spot it?

Answer 7

An intermediate conclusion supports the final conclusion but also acts as a conclusion to its own premise. Look for statements that act as stepping stones in the argument.

Question 8

What’s the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning?

Answer 8

Inductive reasoning draws general conclusions from specific examples, while deductive reasoning starts with a general premise and moves to a specific conclusion.

Question 9

What is analogical reasoning in logical arguments?

Answer 9

Analogical reasoning compares two similar cases to draw conclusions about one based on the other. Look for arguments that use comparisons to make a point.

Question 10

What is causal reasoning, and how can it be flawed?

Answer 10

Causal reasoning assumes that one event causes another. It can be flawed if the relationship is coincidental or if there are alternative causes (correlation does not imply causation).

Question 11

What is a straw man fallacy?

Answer 11

It’s a fallacy where someone misrepresents an argument to make it easier to attack. The real argument is ignored, and a weaker version is refuted.

Question 12

What is a false dilemma, and how do you spot it?

Answer 12

It presents only two choices when more options exist. Look for arguments that oversimplify complex issues by framing them in “either/or” terms.

Question 13

What is an ad hominem fallacy?

Answer 13

This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Watch for personal attacks instead of logical responses.

Question 14

What is begging the question?

Answer 14

It’s a fallacy where the conclusion is assumed in the premises. The argument goes in a circle without providing new evidence.

Question 15

How do you identify unstated assumptions in an argument?

Answer 15

Look for what the author takes for granted without explicitly stating it. Ask yourself: What must be true for the argument to hold?

Question 16

How do you evaluate the implications of an argument?

Answer 16

Consider what would happen if the premises or conclusion were true. Think about potential outcomes or unintended consequences.

Question 17

How do counter-examples weaken an argument?

Answer 17

Counter-examples show instances where the argument doesn’t hold. They highlight exceptions that contradict the general claim being made.

Question 18

What are effective ways to strengthen an argument?

Answer 18

Add relevant evidence, clarify assumptions, or eliminate alternative explanations that undermine the conclusion.

Question 19

How do you weaken an argument?

Answer 19

Present counter-examples, challenge the assumptions, or introduce alternative causes or explanations.

Question 20

How do you distinguish between correlation and causation in an argument?

Answer 20

Correlation refers to events occurring together, but causation implies one event directly causes another. Challenge arguments that mistake correlation for causation.

Question 21

How do you evaluate the relevance of evidence in an argument?

Answer 21

Determine whether the evidence directly supports the premises or conclusion. Irrelevant evidence might sound convincing but doesn’t actually strengthen the argument.

Question 22

How do you evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in an argument?

Answer 22

Consider whether the evidence presented is enough to convincingly support the conclusion, or if more proof is needed.

Question 23

What should you consider when evaluating statistical evidence?

Answer 23

Check for sample size, representativeness, and whether the statistics actually relate to the argument. Watch for misleading data.

Question 24

How do you check for consistency in an argument?

Answer 24

Ensure that the premises logically lead to the conclusion and that there are no contradictions between the different parts of the argument.

Question 25

How do you approach principle-based reasoning in LNAT questions?

Answer 25

Identify the general principle or rule being applied. Consider how well the argument follows the principle and whether any exceptions undermine the reasoning.

Question 26

What is a conditional statement, and how can it be identified in logical reasoning questions?

Answer 26

A conditional statement has the form “If X, then Y.” Look for phrases like “if,” “only if,” “unless,” and “provided that.” Focus on how changes in X affect Y.

Question 27

How do you distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions?

Answer 27

A necessary condition is required for an outcome, but not enough on its own. A sufficient condition guarantees the outcome, but other factors may also achieve it.

Question 28

How do you handle analogy-based questions in the LNAT?

Answer 28

Compare the situations closely to determine whether they are truly analogous. Check if the comparison between the two things holds up or if it breaks down under scrutiny.

Question 29

What is the best approach to paradox questions in the LNAT?

Answer 29

Identify the conflicting information, then figure out how the paradox can be resolved. Look for explanations that reconcile the apparent contradiction.

Question 30

How do you translate abstract language into concrete ideas in logical reasoning?

Answer 30

Break down complex or abstract terms into simpler, more familiar concepts. Relate abstract ideas to real-world examples to make them easier to understand and analyze.

Question 31

How can new information affect an argument in LNAT questions?

Answer 31

Determine whether the new information strengthens or weakens the argument, whether it introduces exceptions, or if it provides clarification that affects the original conclusion.

Question 32

How can you quickly identify the conclusion of an argument in the LNAT?

Answer 32

Look for conclusion indicators like “therefore,” “thus,” or “hence.” The conclusion is the statement that the author is trying to prove based on the premises.