Strong/Weak Arguments - Advanced Level: factual basis ADVANCED

Master strong/weak arguments concepts through this hard problem set practice set. Worksheet 26 of 30 contains 20 advanced-level problems. Deep dive into factual basis while learning persuasive arguments, reasoning strength, argument quality. Recommended for advanced learners aiming for complex scenarios and multi-step problems.

📝 Worksheet 26 of 30 • 20 questions • ⏱️ Estimated time: 20 minutes • 🎯 Advanced level

What you'll learn in this worksheet:
Your progress through Strong/Weak Arguments
Worksheet 26 of 30 (86% complete)

Question 1

Argument: Either we ban all cars or accept environmental destruction. We cannot accept environmental destruction. Therefore, we must ban all cars. What is the primary logical flaw in this argument?
The flaw is False dilemma. Presents only two extreme options when many intermediate solutions exist

Question 2

Topic: Should artificial intelligence be regulated more strictly? Argument: Yes, because uncontrolled AI development could lead to autonomous weapons systems Which new piece of evidence would most weakens this argument?
This weakenss the argument because: Anecdotal evidence is low quality

Question 3

In this argument: 'All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.' Which statement is the CONCLUSION?
The conclusion is what the argument tries to prove. The premises ('All humans are mortal' and 'Socrates is human') support the conclusion 'Socrates is mortal.'

Question 4

Argument: 'After we started the job training program, unemployment went down. So the program caused the decrease.' What important alternative explanation is ignored?
This commits the 'post hoc' fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). Without a control group or considering national trends, we can't establish causation.

Question 5

Proposal: Implementing a four-day work week nationwide Argument: Pilot programs in multiple countries show 4-day weeks maintain productivity while improving employee well-being and reducing environmental impact through less commuting Evaluate this argument across multiple criteria (evidence quality, relevance, comprehensiveness):
Evidence: Strong, Relevance: Strong, Comprehensiveness: Strong. Overall: Strong

Question 6

Proposal: Implementing a four-day work week nationwide Argument: People have worked 5 days a week for decades, so we shouldn't change it Evaluate this argument across multiple criteria (evidence quality, relevance, comprehensiveness):
Evidence: Weak, Relevance: Weak, Comprehensiveness: Weak. Overall: Weak

Question 7

Proposal: Universal basic income of $1000/month for all citizens Argument: We cannot afford UBI without massive tax increases What is the MOST significant weakness or missing element in this argument?
Key weakness: Doesn't account for economic stimulus effects. This limits the argument's strength despite other merits.

Question 8

Proposal: Implementing a four-day work week nationwide Argument: Shorter work weeks sound nice and would make everyone happier What is the MOST significant weakness or missing element in this argument?
Key weakness: No evidence, purely emotional. This limits the argument's strength despite other merits.

Question 9

Context: Corporate board meeting about remote work policy Argument: In-person collaboration is essential for innovation and company culture Which unstated assumption does this argument rely on?
Hidden assumption: Innovation cannot happen remotely. Without this assumption, the argument's conclusion may not follow from its premises.

Question 10

Argument: 'Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both rise together. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning.' What is the logical problem with this argument?
This is a classic 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy. Hot weather causes both increased ice cream sales and more swimming/drowning.

Question 11

Argument: We should require voter ID because it prevents fraud. Which is the STRONGEST counterargument?
The strongest counterargument addresses the premise (fraud prevalence) and shows the policy's harm outweighs its benefit, using evidence.

Question 12

Argument: 'Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both rise together. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning.' What is the logical problem with this argument?
This is a classic 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy. Hot weather causes both increased ice cream sales and more swimming/drowning.

Question 13

Argument: 'Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both rise together. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning.' What is the logical problem with this argument?
This is a classic 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy. Hot weather causes both increased ice cream sales and more swimming/drowning.

Question 14

Argument by analogy: 'We ban violent movies for children. Violent video games are similar in their violent content. Therefore, we should also ban violent video games for children.' What is the STRONGEST counterargument to this analogy?
Interactive vs. passive consumption is a key difference that may make the analogy weak. Good analogical reasoning requires relevant similarities outweigh relevant differences.

Question 15

Is this argument deductive or inductive?
Deductive arguments aim for logical necessity. If premises are true, conclusion must be true. This is a classic syllogism.

Question 16

Argument: College should be free because education benefits society. Which unstated assumption (missing premise) is necessary for this argument to be logically valid?
The missing premise is: Society should collectively fund services that provide broad public benefits.. Without this assumption, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the given evidence.

Question 17

In this argument: 'All humans are mortal. Socrates is human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.' Which statement is the CONCLUSION?
The conclusion is what the argument tries to prove. The premises ('All humans are mortal' and 'Socrates is human') support the conclusion 'Socrates is mortal.'

Question 18

Is this argument deductive or inductive? What makes it strong or weak?
Inductive arguments generalize from specific cases. They cannot be 'valid' like deduction; instead, they are stronger with larger, more representative samples.

Question 19

Context: Debate in City Council about building a new stadium Argument: I don't like sports so this is a waste of money In this context, how strong is this argument?
Weak argument in this context: Personal preference irrelevant to public policy decisions

Question 20

What is the primary weakness in this argument?
Small, non-random sample (n=5) cannot support population-wide conclusions regardless of unanimity.
Previous Worksheet Next Worksheet