Questions about arguments
Whenever someone gives a reason for thinking that something is true, they have given an argument. In this sense, arguments are found in every field of rational inquiry and the humanities are no exception. Given an argument, there are lots of good questions you can ask students about it. Here are some examples:
- Which of the following best represents the conclusion of the argument?
- Which of the following are premises in this argument?
- Is this argument valid? Do the premises (evidence) support the conclusion?
- Which of the following is an assumption required for the conclusion to follow?
- Which of the following describes a flaw in this argument?
The following example questions are all taken from the field of philosophy, but all these types of question about arguments can be applied to other fields too. For questions about arguments, we have a very useful source to be LSAT logical reasoning questions. A good source for these are the LSAT PrepTest booklets, published by LSAC (LSAC 2002: The Official LSAT PrepTest (nos. 7-53). Newton, PA, Law School Admission Council).
Identify the conclusion
| (1) The second way is based on the nature of causation. (2) In the observable world causes are found to be ordered in series; (3) we never observe, nor ever could, something causing itself, for (4) this would mean it preceded itself, and (5) this is not possible. (6) Such a series of causes must however stop somewhere .... (7) One is therefore forced to suppose some first cause, to which everyone gives the name of "God'. Which of the numbered statements in the passage represents the main conclusion of the argument? A. (7) B. (1) C. (5) D. (6) |
| Which one of the following statements best represents the conclusion of Paley's argument? A. Any complex object requires a designer to explain how it came to exist. B. If you came across a watch lying on the heath, you inevitably infer that it had a designer. C. Whenever we discover purpose or function in an object, we inevitably infer that the object must have had a designer. D. The natural world is the product of intelligent design. |
Identify the premises
| (1) The second way is based on the nature of causation. (2) In the observable world causes are found to be ordered in series; (3) we never observe, nor ever could, something causing itself, for (4) this would mean it preceded itself, and (5) this is not possible. (6) Such a series of causes must however stop somewhere .... (7) One is therefore forced to suppose some first cause, to which everyone gives the name of "God'. Which of the numbered statements in the passage represent premises of the argument? A. (1), (2) and (3) B. (2) and (3) but not (6) C. (2), (3) and (6) D. (3) and (6) but not (2) |
Is the argument valid?
| Consider the following argument: 1. Some things exist and their existence is caused. 2. Nothing causes itself. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore: C. There is a first cause something that causes other things, but is not itself caused and that thing is God. |
| Which of the following statements about the validity of this argument do you think are correct? A. The argument is valid because if all the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. B. The argument is invalid because there are some things which exist, but do not have any cause. C. The argument is invalid because there is no contradiction in the idea of an infinite regress of causes, so an infinite regress of causes is possible. D. The argument is invalid because it does not show that the first cause has all the necessary attributes of God. |
|
Consider the following argument schema: P1. All and only . . . . . . beings have a significant interest in living. P2. Other things being equal, it is seriously wrong to kill a being who has a significant interest in living. Therefore: C. Other things being equal, it is seriously wrong to kill a being which is . . . . . . . Is the argument schema valid? A. yes B. no |
Identify an assumption (unstated premise) required for the argument to go through
| Here is a summary of Anselm's ontological argument: Suppose (for reductio): 1. The greatest conceivable being exists in the mind, but not in reality. 2. If something exists in the mind, it can be conceived to exist in reality as well. 3. ... Therefore: (1, 2 and 3): 4. Something greater than the greatest conceivable being can be conceived. 5. Nothing greater than the greatest conceivable being can be conceived. Therefore (since 4 and 5 are a contradiction): 6. Supposition 1 must be false: it is false that the greatest conceivable being exists in the mind, but not in reality. But: 7. The greatest conceivable being exists in the mind. Therefore (6 and 7): 10. The greatest conceivable being exists in reality. |
| What best fills the gap at premise 3? A. The greatest conceivable being exists not only in the mind, but also in reality. B. Nothing that is greater than the greatest conceivable being can be conceived. C. Something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists only in the mind. D. Anything that can be conceived to exist in reality, must actually exist in reality. |
Identify a flaw in the argument
| Capital punishment is justified if it deters people from committing violent crimes. However, the statistics on violent crime show that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. Therefore, capital punishment is never justified. This argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it A. assumes what it is trying to prove B. fails to consider that capital punishment might be justified in other ways C. equivocates with respect to the central concept of 'violent crime' D. too readily accepts a claim by appeal to inappropriate authority |