Previous Page  26 / 30 Next Page
Basic version Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 26 / 30 Next Page
Page Background

6

STUDIO

You will be far better prepared if you have acquired the habit of asking yourself a

whole range critical questions: What is the conclusion? Does the conclusion follow

from the reasons? Is anything assumed beyond what is stated? How to challenge or

support this argument?

Read every answer choice before selecting the best response.

• A longer passage of more than one paragraph followed by three questions designed

to check reading comprehension; numerical data may be included.

1.3

Understanding argument 3: example argument

Argument: Motorway speed limits should be increased to 80 mph. The current limit

of 70 mph was introduced in 1965 when cars were less well engineered than today.

Modern cars are designed for speeds well in excess of 80 mph so there is no need to

restrict motorway speeds to 70 mph.

Conclusion

: Motorway speed limits should be increased to 80 mph.

Evidence

(taken as fact): Modern cars are better engineered.

Evidence

(taken as fact): They are designed for speeds well over 80 mph.

Assumption

(can be challenged): Driving at 80 mph is safe if the car is designed

to do it.

The above argument can be weakened by contradictory evidence or strengthened by

supportive evidence. For example:

• Significantly weakening

:

It may be the case that motor vehicle accidents on motor-

ways usually involve speeds in excess of the current limit (challenges a questionable

assumption).

• Significantly strengthening

: It may be the case that most accidents are not caused by

speeding (supports 70 mph+).

• Slightly weakening

: It may be the case that higher speeds lead to more serious acci-

dents (true but outside scope of argument).

• Slightly strengthening

: It may be the case that there have been major improvements in

highway engineering since 1965 (true but outside scope of argument).

• Inference

: Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph will not lead to more acci-

dents (main thrust of argument).

• Irrelevant

: Carbon dioxide emissions will increase if the speed limit is raised (true

but outside scope of argument).

1.4

Critical thinking: Venn diagrams and logic statements

Let’s make an example of

Venn diagrams

. 48 patients attend a chest clinic; 29 have

asthma (A), 30 have bronchitis (B) and 8 have neither disease. How many patients