Challenge your critical thinking skills with this ACT Logical Reasoning Mini Quiz, designed to evaluate your ability to analyze arguments, identify flaws, and draw valid conclusions. Perfect for students preparing to excel in standardized test reasoning sections.
A scientist claims that drinking green tea daily improves concentration, based on a study where tea drinkers scored higher on memory tests. Which is a necessary assumption for the scientist’s claim to be valid?
Explanation: The scientist’s claim requires the assumption that green tea is responsible for the improved scores, not some other factor. Assuming all tea drinkers keep a strict sleep schedule is irrelevant, as it isn’t addressed in the claim. The participation of only students might limit generalizability but is not necessary for the claim to be valid. Believing that memory tests are the only way to assess concentration is also unrelated to the core assumption needed here.
Lucas observed that when he waters his plants every day, they seem healthier. Which conclusion can reasonably be drawn from this information?
Explanation: Based on the observation, it's reasonable to conclude there may be a link between regular watering and plant health, though not necessarily causation. The claim that all plants need daily watering is too broad, as different species have varying needs. Over-watering can harm many plants, so that statement is incorrect. The idea that plants will always die without water overlooks species that can tolerate drought.
In an argument, someone claims that since most successful athletes train early in the morning, training at dawn will guarantee success. What is the flaw in this reasoning?
Explanation: The flaw is assuming that just because two things occur together, one causes the other, which is a common logical misstep. Claiming comprehensive data is incorrect; the claim does not require full athlete data. Considering only the type of sport is not the point at issue here. A reliable control group is not mentioned or relevant to the flaw identified.
Sarah argues that since her hometown has the best pizza restaurant, it must also have the best bakeries. What logical fallacy is present in Sarah’s argument?
Explanation: Sarah compares the quality of pizza restaurants to bakeries without showing that excellence in one food category means excellence in another, which is a faulty analogy. Ad hominem involves attacking a person, not a comparison. Post hoc relates to mistaking a sequence of events for causation, which is unrelated here. 'Red harring' is a misspelling, but even so, a red herring refers to diverting the argument, which is not the case.
If a claim states, 'All students who study more than two hours daily score above average,' which would most weaken this argument?
Explanation: The existence of students who studied the required amount but did not achieve above-average scores directly undermines the universal claim. Study location preference doesn’t address time spent or test performance, so it does not weaken the argument. Laptop ownership is irrelevant to the claim about study hours and performance. Higher average scores overall do not refute the relationship proposed in the claim.