Unlock hundreds more features
Save your Quiz to the Dashboard
View and Export Results
Use AI to Create Quizzes and Analyse Results

OR
Sign inSign in with Facebook
Sign inSign in with Google
Quizzes > Quizzes for Business > Education

Master Your Logical Reasoning Assessment

Challenge Your Analytical Thinking in This Assessment

Difficulty: Moderate
Questions: 20
Learning OutcomesStudy Material
Colorful paper art depicting a quiz on Logical Reasoning Assessment

Ready to put your logic skills to the test with engaging real-world scenarios? This Logical Reasoning Assessment is perfect for students and professionals aiming to sharpen analytical thinking. Try the Logical Reasoning Quiz for foundational practice or the Reasoning Skills Assessment Test to tackle more challenging problems. You can freely edit every question in our editor to suit your goals. Explore all quizzes and keep sharpening your reasoning abilities.

In the argument "All mammals are warm-blooded. Whales are mammals. Therefore, whales are warm-blooded.", which statement is the conclusion?
All mammals are warm-blooded.
Whales are mammals.
Therefore, whales are warm-blooded.
Whales are aquatic animals.
The conclusion is the statement that follows from the premises and is supported by them. "Therefore, whales are warm-blooded" is the claim derived from the two premises.
Which of the following arguments is clearly deductive?
Almost all birds can fly; penguins are birds; therefore, penguins can probably fly.
If it rains, the ground will be wet. It is raining. Therefore, the ground is wet.
I've eaten three apples from that tree and they were sweet; so every apple from that tree is sweet.
Sarah has a red car and John has a red car; thus, anyone with a red car is careful.
A deductive argument claims its conclusion necessarily follows from its premises. The modus ponens form "If it rains, the ground will be wet. It is raining. Therefore, the ground is wet." is a classic valid deductive argument.
Which pattern of reasoning exemplifies modus ponens?
If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P.
If P then Q. Q. Therefore P.
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.
P or Q. Not P. Therefore Q.
Modus ponens has the form: If P then Q; P is asserted; therefore Q follows necessarily. This is the fundamental valid argument pattern.
Which of these is an example of an ad hominem fallacy?
We should reject the policy because it will cost too much.
Don't listen to her on economics; she flunked freshman math.
The data proves our hypothesis wrong.
Because it's popular, it must be correct.
An ad hominem fallacy attacks the person rather than addressing the argument. Here the speaker dismisses her view on economics by pointing to her math grade instead of her reasoning.
Consider: "If it rains, the street gets wet. The street is wet. Therefore, it rained." Is this argument valid or invalid?
Valid
Invalid
Sound
Begging the question
This commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent: from "If P then Q" and "Q" one cannot infer "P." Therefore the argument is invalid.
Identify the fallacy: "If we allow students to redo assignments, soon they'll expect to redo tests, then demand grade changes, and eventually destroy academic standards."
False dilemma
Slippery slope
Appeal to tradition
Straw man
The slippery slope fallacy asserts without justification that one action will lead to a chain of extreme consequences. Here allowance of redoing assignments is claimed to inevitably undermine all standards.
Which inductive generalization is strongest?
10% of voters in one district said they'll vote for X, so X will win nationally.
100 individuals from diverse regions were polled; 90% support policy Y.
My two neighbors recycle, so everyone recycles.
I saw 5 black crows today, thus all crows are black.
A strong inductive generalization uses an adequately large, representative sample. Polling 100 diverse individuals yields more reliable support than tiny or nonrepresentative samples.
Given: "All philosophers are thinkers. Some thinkers are scientists." What valid inference can be drawn?
Some philosophers are scientists.
All scientists are thinkers.
Some thinkers are philosophers.
No valid conclusion about philosophers and scientists can be drawn.
From these premises, no definite relationship between philosophers and scientists can be established. Only that all philosophers are thinkers and some thinkers are scientists.
Which of these best illustrates the straw man fallacy?
You say we should eat less sugar, but you just want everyone to starve.
My opponent says we need more funding, but budgets are already huge.
I disagree with your point because it's too popular.
Everyone who drives should buy an electric car.
A straw man misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Saying that advocating less sugar equals wanting starvation distorts the original claim.
"All swans I've seen are white. Therefore, all swans are white." Which fallacy is this?
Post hoc
Hasty generalization
Equivocation
Appeal to ignorance
Hasty generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn from an insufficient or nonrepresentative sample. Observing only some swans and concluding about all is fallacious.
Which pattern exemplifies modus tollens?
If A then B; A; therefore B.
If A then B; not B; therefore not A.
If A then B; B; therefore A.
A or B; not B; therefore A.
Modus tollens has the form: If A then B; not B; therefore not A. It is a valid deductive form by denying the consequent.
In this scenario: "Ice cream sales and drowning incidents rise together in summer. Ice cream causes drowning." What error is committed?
Circular reasoning
False cause
Slippery slope
Red herring
This is a false cause fallacy (cum hoc), assuming correlation implies causation. Both sales and drownings rise due to a lurking variable: hot weather.
Which analogical argument is strongest?
Car engines and hearts both pump fluids; engines shouldn't get clogged, so hearts shouldn't encounter blockages either.
Two companies have similar size, market, and management; one succeeded with strategy X; thus the other likely will too.
Birds and planes both fly, so planes must flap wings to generate lift.
My phone and my computer both run programs, so my phone has as much memory as my computer.
A strong analogy matches on relevant, numerous, and specific features. Similar company contexts make the strategy comparison plausible, unlike irrelevant or superficial similarities.
Which example best illustrates an appeal to authority fallacy?
Studies show exercise helps mood, so you should exercise.
Famous actor endorses medication, so it must be effective.
If you drive too fast, you will crash.
Either we ban phones in school or learning quality will collapse.
Appeal to authority is fallacious when an endorsement by a non-expert (or irrelevant celebrity) is used as the main support. The actor is not a medical authority.
Identify the red herring in this debate: "We shouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy. Instead, think how many businesses will leave the country."
The impact on businesses leaving.
Taxes on the wealthy.
Leaving the country.
Changes in government policy.
A red herring introduces an irrelevant issue to distract from the real topic. Discussing business departure shifts attention from the taxation discussion.
Assess the validity of this syllogism: "No A are B. All C are B. Therefore, no C are A."
Valid and sound
Valid but unsound
Invalid
None of the above
The form "No A are B; All C are B; therefore no C are A" is a valid categorical syllogism (EAE-2). It is unsound if the premises are false, but validity is preserved.
Which inference is valid from these premises? "If (P or Q) then R. Not R."
Not P or Q.
Not P and not Q.
P and Q.
Either P or not Q.
From "(P ∨ Q) → R" and "¬R" we apply modus tollens to the disjunction: ¬(P ∨ Q) which is equivalent to ¬P ∧ ¬Q.
An argument compares cars to horses: "Both provide transport, require care, and have limits on speed. Therefore, because horses can't go above 30 mph, cars can't either." What is this error?
Composition
False analogy
Division
Equivocation
A false analogy fallacy occurs when the comparison ignores relevant dissimilarities. Cars and horses share some traits but differ drastically in speed potential.
Identify the flaw in this statistical syllogism: "90% of surveyed drivers text while driving; therefore, 90% of all drivers text while driving."
Biased sample
Appeal to ignorance
Equivocation
Circular reasoning
This assumes the survey sample is representative. If the surveyed group was biased (e.g., young drivers), the conclusion about all drivers is invalid.
Given these premises, which conclusion follows? "All X are Y or Z. No Z are W. Some W are Y."
Some X are not W.
All X are W.
No X are Y.
Some Y are not W.
From "All X are (Y ∨ Z)" and "No Z are W" plus "Some W are Y," we know any X in W must be Y. Therefore some X (those in W) are not W is false; rather, some X are not W follows because some X could be Z. Actually since some W are Y and no Z are W, some Y ∩ W exist but X could be Z. The only certain inference is that some X are not W.
0
{"name":"In the argument \"All mammals are warm-blooded. Whales are mammals. Therefore, whales are warm-blooded.\", which statement is the conclusion?", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"In the argument \"All mammals are warm-blooded. Whales are mammals. Therefore, whales are warm-blooded.\", which statement is the conclusion?, Which of the following arguments is clearly deductive?, Which pattern of reasoning exemplifies modus ponens?","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}

Learning Outcomes

  1. Analyse argument structures to pinpoint invalid reasoning.
  2. Evaluate deductive and inductive arguments with precision.
  3. Identify common logical fallacies in varied scenarios.
  4. Apply critical thinking strategies to solve problems.
  5. Demonstrate accurate inference-making from given information.
  6. Master time management for efficient test-taking.

Cheat Sheet

  1. Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning - Deductive reasoning guarantees a true conclusion when its premises are correct, while inductive reasoning uses evidence to suggest likely outcomes. Mastering both lets you craft airtight proofs or persuasive arguments based on real-world data. Dive deeper with this handy guide: Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning
  2. Ad Hominem Fallacy - Attacking the person instead of the argument doesn't prove or disprove anything - it just distracts from the real issues. Spotting ad hominems helps you keep debates focused on facts, not personalities. Learn more here: Ad Hominem
  3. False Dilemma Fallacy - Presenting only two options when others exist forces a black-and-white view that oversimplifies complex issues. Recognizing false dilemmas helps you open up richer, more nuanced discussions. Explore further: False Dilemma
  4. Circular Reasoning - When a conclusion is sneakily used as a premise, you end up running in circles without real proof. Calling out circular logic protects you from arguments that look strong but go nowhere. More details here: Circular Reasoning
  5. Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum) - Just because everyone believes something doesn't make it true - popularity isn't proof. Learning this fallacy helps you think for yourself and demand real evidence. Learn more: Argumentum ad Populum
  6. Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting someone's argument as an exaggerated caricature makes it easy to knock down - but it's unfair and misleading. Spotting straw men keeps debates honest and on-topic. Check out more tips: Logical Fallacies Guide
  7. Slippery Slope Fallacy - Assuming one small step will trigger an unstoppable chain of events without evidence is a recipe for fear-mongering. By spotting slippery slopes, you can demand proof before buying into extreme predictions. Explore the breakdown: Logical Fallacies Guide
  8. Hasty Generalization - Drawing big conclusions from tiny or unrepresentative samples can lead to unfair stereotypes. Slowing down to gather more evidence helps you avoid these snap judgments and strengthen your analyses. Find more examples: Logical Fallacies Guide
  9. Red Herring Fallacy - Introducing irrelevant distractions derails the conversation and hides the real issue, just like a magician's trick. Calling out red herrings keeps discussions focused and productive. Learn how: Logical Fallacies Guide
  10. Analyzing Argument Structures - Breaking arguments into premises and conclusions reveals hidden assumptions and weak spots. This superhero skill turns you into a pro debater or critical thinker. Ready to level up? Logical Fallacies Guide
Make a Quiz (FREE) Copy & Edit This Quiz Create a Quiz with AI

Education Quizzes

Powered by: Quiz Maker