PHIL 347 Exam 3: Critical Reasoning Updated and Latest
Questions and Correct Answers with Rationale
1. A researcher conducts a study on a new medication and finds that 75% of participants improved, but the
study lacked a control group. Which of the following is the most significant critical reasoning flaw in this
scenario?
A. The sample size was likely too small to be representative of the general population.
B. The study fails to account for the placebo effect or natural recovery rates.
C. The researcher is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy by ignoring patient history.
D. The conclusion is based on a deductive rather than an inductive inference.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The absence of a control group makes it impossible to determine if the medication caused the
improvement. Without a baseline for comparison, the 75% improvement could be due to external factors
or the placebo effect. Option A is a possibility but not the primary methodological flaw described here.
Option C is irrelevant because no personal attacks were mentioned in the study description. Critical
thinkers must demand a control group to establish a causal link between treatment and outcome.
2. When evaluating an argument from analogy, which of the following factors most strengthens the
conclusion?
A. Increasing the number of irrelevant similarities between the two cases.
B. The diversity of the cases mentioned in the premises.
C. Decreasing the number of instances compared in the argument.
D. Ensuring the conclusion makes a very broad and sweeping claim.
Correct Answer: B
,Rationale: The diversity of cases in the premises helps show that the similarity is robust across different
contexts. This strengthens the inductive leap by suggesting the shared trait is not a mere coincidence.
Option A is incorrect because irrelevant similarities do not add logical weight to the comparison. Option
D is wrong because a more modest conclusion is generally more likely to be true in an analogy. Effective
critical reasoning requires identifying the relevance of similarities rather than just the quantity of them.
3. According to Mill’s Method of Agreement, if two or more instances of a phenomenon have only one
circumstance in common, that circumstance is likely:
A. Evidence of a correlation that lacks any underlying causal mechanism.
B. A statistical anomaly that should be disregarded in scientific inquiry.
C. A necessary condition but never a sufficient condition for the effect.
D. The cause or an indispensable part of the cause of the phenomenon.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Mill’s Method of Agreement identifies a common factor across different cases as the probable
cause. This method is a cornerstone of inductive reasoning when isolating variables in complex
environments. Option B is incorrect because the method aims to find patterns, not dismiss them as
anomalies. Option C is too restrictive because the common factor could indeed be sufficient in that
context. Using this method allows researchers to narrow down potential causes from a large pool of
variables.
4. In the context of moral reasoning, which statement best describes the ‘Categorical Imperative’ as
proposed by Immanuel Kant?
A. Virtue is a mean between two extremes of deficiency and excess.
B. The morality of an action is determined solely by the happiness it produces for the majority.
, C. Moral truths are relative to the culture or individual performing the action.
D. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: The Categorical Imperative focuses on the universalizability of one’s actions as the standard
for morality. This deontological approach prioritizes duty and logic over the specific consequences of an
act. Option B describes Utilitarianism, which is often contrasted with Kantian ethics in critical reasoning.
Option D refers to Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics and the concept of the Golden Mean. Applying Kant’s
framework requires checking if a rule could consistently be applied to everyone without contradiction.
5. A politician argues: ‘We must either increase taxes to fund the new highway or allow our infrastructure to
crumble.’ This argument most likely commits which fallacy?
A. Slippery Slope
B. Circular Reasoning
C. Appeal to Authority
D. False Dilemma
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: A false dilemma presents only two options when other viable alternatives might actually exist.
In this case, the politician ignores options like budget reallocation or private-public partnerships. Option
A is incorrect because the argument doesn’t suggest a chain reaction of increasingly bad events. Option D
is wrong because the conclusion is not used as a premise to support itself. Critical evaluation involves
looking for the ‘middle ground’ or alternative solutions that have been excluded.
Questions and Correct Answers with Rationale
1. A researcher conducts a study on a new medication and finds that 75% of participants improved, but the
study lacked a control group. Which of the following is the most significant critical reasoning flaw in this
scenario?
A. The sample size was likely too small to be representative of the general population.
B. The study fails to account for the placebo effect or natural recovery rates.
C. The researcher is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy by ignoring patient history.
D. The conclusion is based on a deductive rather than an inductive inference.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The absence of a control group makes it impossible to determine if the medication caused the
improvement. Without a baseline for comparison, the 75% improvement could be due to external factors
or the placebo effect. Option A is a possibility but not the primary methodological flaw described here.
Option C is irrelevant because no personal attacks were mentioned in the study description. Critical
thinkers must demand a control group to establish a causal link between treatment and outcome.
2. When evaluating an argument from analogy, which of the following factors most strengthens the
conclusion?
A. Increasing the number of irrelevant similarities between the two cases.
B. The diversity of the cases mentioned in the premises.
C. Decreasing the number of instances compared in the argument.
D. Ensuring the conclusion makes a very broad and sweeping claim.
Correct Answer: B
,Rationale: The diversity of cases in the premises helps show that the similarity is robust across different
contexts. This strengthens the inductive leap by suggesting the shared trait is not a mere coincidence.
Option A is incorrect because irrelevant similarities do not add logical weight to the comparison. Option
D is wrong because a more modest conclusion is generally more likely to be true in an analogy. Effective
critical reasoning requires identifying the relevance of similarities rather than just the quantity of them.
3. According to Mill’s Method of Agreement, if two or more instances of a phenomenon have only one
circumstance in common, that circumstance is likely:
A. Evidence of a correlation that lacks any underlying causal mechanism.
B. A statistical anomaly that should be disregarded in scientific inquiry.
C. A necessary condition but never a sufficient condition for the effect.
D. The cause or an indispensable part of the cause of the phenomenon.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Mill’s Method of Agreement identifies a common factor across different cases as the probable
cause. This method is a cornerstone of inductive reasoning when isolating variables in complex
environments. Option B is incorrect because the method aims to find patterns, not dismiss them as
anomalies. Option C is too restrictive because the common factor could indeed be sufficient in that
context. Using this method allows researchers to narrow down potential causes from a large pool of
variables.
4. In the context of moral reasoning, which statement best describes the ‘Categorical Imperative’ as
proposed by Immanuel Kant?
A. Virtue is a mean between two extremes of deficiency and excess.
B. The morality of an action is determined solely by the happiness it produces for the majority.
, C. Moral truths are relative to the culture or individual performing the action.
D. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: The Categorical Imperative focuses on the universalizability of one’s actions as the standard
for morality. This deontological approach prioritizes duty and logic over the specific consequences of an
act. Option B describes Utilitarianism, which is often contrasted with Kantian ethics in critical reasoning.
Option D refers to Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics and the concept of the Golden Mean. Applying Kant’s
framework requires checking if a rule could consistently be applied to everyone without contradiction.
5. A politician argues: ‘We must either increase taxes to fund the new highway or allow our infrastructure to
crumble.’ This argument most likely commits which fallacy?
A. Slippery Slope
B. Circular Reasoning
C. Appeal to Authority
D. False Dilemma
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: A false dilemma presents only two options when other viable alternatives might actually exist.
In this case, the politician ignores options like budget reallocation or private-public partnerships. Option
A is incorrect because the argument doesn’t suggest a chain reaction of increasingly bad events. Option D
is wrong because the conclusion is not used as a premise to support itself. Critical evaluation involves
looking for the ‘middle ground’ or alternative solutions that have been excluded.
