UGCNET Questions

An assumption is an unstated belief or idea that must be true for the argument’s reasoning to work, even though it is not explicitly mentioned. It forms part of the underlying support for the conclusion. When analysing arguments, identifying assumptions helps reveal what the author is relying on without saying. These hidden elements can be tested for reasonableness and necessity.

Option A:
Option A describes an explicit premise, which appears directly in the argument and is not hidden.

Option B:
Option B fits the notion of a conclusion or inference, something derived from the premises rather than presupposed by them.

Option C:
Option C captures the idea that assumptions operate in the background; they are required for the argument to be plausible but remain unstated.

Option D:
Option D refers to a statement that goes against the conclusion, which would weaken or refute the argument rather than support it implicitly.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts an opponent’s position into a weaker or exaggerated version and attacks that instead of the original view. In the given statement, the speaker changes “spend more on education” into “ignore all other public needs,” which the opponent never claimed. The distorted position is easier to criticise and therefore misrepresents the actual proposal. This is a classic case of setting up and knocking down a straw man.

Option A:
Option A, ad hominem, would attack the person’s character rather than their argument, which is not the focus here.

Option B:
Option B properly describes the error of turning a moderate proposal into an extreme one for the sake of refutation. The original claim is unfairly exaggerated.

Option C:
Option C, appeal to authority, involves citing an expert or famous person as evidence without examining the reasoning, which is not happening in this argument.

Option D:
Option D, false dilemma, would limit the choices to just two extreme options, which is not the structure of this misrepresentation.

The argument links online courses with distraction at home and then directly concludes they are ineffective. For this move to work, the speaker must be assuming that distraction has a strong negative impact on learning outcomes. If distraction did not significantly reduce learning effectiveness, the fact that students “often get distracted” would not support the claim of ineffectiveness. Thus, the hidden bridge premise is that distraction harms learning in a substantial way.

Option A:
Option A overstates the issue by claiming distraction is the only factor, which is not required for the argument; the reasoning can proceed even if other factors exist.

Option B:
Option B is an additional claim about traditional classrooms that is not necessary for the argument; the focus is on online context and distraction.

Option C:
Option C correctly identifies the needed link between distraction and reduced effectiveness, which is what turns the observation into a criticism of online courses.

Option D:
Option D introduces cost, which is irrelevant to the line of reasoning about effectiveness and distraction.

An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a claim is accepted as true simply because an authority or famous person asserts it, without examining the actual evidence or expertise. In this case, a famous actor is cited to guarantee the scientific soundness of a diet. Actors are not necessarily experts in nutrition or medical science, so their endorsement does not constitute strong scientific evidence. The argument relies on status rather than substantive reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, straw man, would involve misrepresenting another person’s argument, which is not happening here.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies the undue reliance on a celebrity’s opinion as the central flaw, instead of referring to clinical trials or expert studies.

Option C:
Option C, red herring, would distract from the issue by introducing an irrelevant point, whereas the problem here is the kind of evidence used.

Option D:
Option D, false cause, involves wrongly attributing causation, which is not the main issue in this example.

An ad hominem fallacy attacks the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument’s content. In the statement, the speaker dismisses the climate change argument based solely on the speaker’s professional background, rather than examining evidence or logic. This makes the personal attribute irrelevant to the truth of the claim and shifts attention away from the actual reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, straw man, involves misrepresenting someone’s argument and attacking the distorted version, which is not happening here.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies the focus on the person rather than the argument as the key flaw. The criticism targets who is speaking, not what is being said.

Option C:
Option C, appeal to pity, tries to win support by arousing sympathy rather than offering reasons, which is absent here.

Option D:
Option D, appeal to ignorance, argues that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, which is a different kind of mistake.

Validity concerns only the logical structure of an argument. A valid argument is one where, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion cannot logically be false. However, validity alone does not guarantee that the premises are actually true in reality. When a valid form is combined with true premises, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true, and this is the key relationship captured in the correct statement.

Option A:
Option A correctly links validity with truth in the conditional way used in logic: validity plus true premises forces the conclusion to be true. It neither assumes nor denies that the premises are in fact true; it specifies what would follow if they are.

Option B:
Option B incorrectly claims that validity requires true premises, but an argument can be valid even if its premises are false, as long as the conclusion follows logically.

Option C:
Option C wrongly asserts that the conclusion of a valid argument must be true regardless of the premises’ truth, which misunderstands validity as guaranteeing truth instead of preserving it.

Option D:
Option D conflates validity with soundness; soundness additionally requires that all premises are actually true.