Civil Service Verbal Reasoning Test Critical Analysis of Arguments and Evidence Syllabus

What is the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy?

The post hoc fallacy assumes that because event B followed event A, A must have caused B — mistaking temporal sequence for causation.

What is a 'straw man' fallacy?

Misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's position into a weaker version, then refuting that distorted version instead of the actual argument.

What is an 'ad hominem' fallacy?

Attacking the person making an argument — their character, motives, or circumstances — rather than addressing the argument itself.

What is a 'false dilemma' (false dichotomy)?

Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities when in fact other alternatives exist.

What is the 'slippery slope' fallacy?

Claiming that one small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences, without providing evidence that the chain reaction will actually occur.

What is 'circular reasoning' (begging the question)?

An argument in which the conclusion is assumed within the premises, so the reasoning merely restates the claim rather than supporting it independently.

What is the 'appeal to authority' fallacy?

Treating a claim as true simply because an authority figure endorses it, especially when the authority is not an expert on the relevant subject or experts disagree.

What is the 'hasty generalisation' fallacy?

Drawing a broad general conclusion from a sample that is too small or unrepresentative to support it.

What is the 'appeal to popularity' (bandwagon) fallacy?

Arguing that a claim is true or right simply because many people believe it or do it.

What is 'loaded language' in a passage?

Loaded language uses emotionally charged or value-laden words to influence the reader's judgement rather than relying on neutral facts — for example 'reckless scheme' versus 'new policy'.

What is bias in the context of evaluating arguments and sources?

Bias is a tendency to favour one side, position, or outcome, which can distort the selection, presentation, or interpretation of evidence.

How can you detect bias in a passage?

Look for one-sided evidence, emotive or loaded wording, undisclosed vested interests of the source, omission of counterarguments, and selective use of facts.

Why is identifying the source's vested interest important when weighing evidence?

A source with a stake in the conclusion may present evidence selectively or with bias, which reduces the reliability and objectivity of that evidence.

When a single passage contains multiple viewpoints, what is the reader's first task?

To distinguish which statements belong to which viewpoint — separating the author's own position from the views being reported, quoted, or attributed to others.

How can you tell the author's own view from a view they merely report?

Reported views are usually attributed ('critics argue', 'some claim', 'opponents say'), while the author's view is often signalled by endorsement or rebuttal language ('however', 'in fact', 'the truth is').

What does it mean for two statements to be 'consistent'?

Two statements are consistent if they can both be true at the same time — there is no logical conflict between them.

What does it mean for two statements to be 'contradictory'?

Two statements are contradictory if they cannot both be true at the same time; if one is true the other must be false.

What is the difference between contradictory statements and merely contrary statements?

Contradictory statements cannot both be true and cannot both be false; contrary statements cannot both be true but can both be false.

In a conditional statement 'If P then Q', what are P and Q called?

P is the antecedent (the condition) and Q is the consequent (the result that follows if the condition holds).

For the conditional $P \to Q$, what is the valid inference 'modus ponens'?

Modus ponens: given $P \to Q$ and $P$, you may validly conclude $Q$. (Affirming the antecedent.)

For the conditional $P \to Q$, what is the valid inference 'modus tollens'?

Modus tollens: given $P \to Q$ and $\neg Q$ (not Q), you may validly conclude $\neg P$ (not P). (Denying the consequent.)

What is the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'?

Invalidly concluding $P$ from $P \to Q$ and $Q$. Knowing the consequent is true does not establish the antecedent, because Q could arise from other causes.

What is the fallacy of 'denying the antecedent'?

Invalidly concluding $\neg Q$ from $P \to Q$ and $\neg P$. The conditional does not say what happens when P is false, so Q may still hold.

What is the contrapositive of 'If P then Q', and is it logically equivalent?

The contrapositive is 'If not Q then not P' ($\neg Q \to \neg P$), and it is logically equivalent to the original conditional $P \to Q$.

Why is the converse of a conditional not equivalent to the original?

The converse of $P \to Q$ is $Q \to P$. The original guarantees Q given P but says nothing about P given Q, so the converse can be false even when the original is true.

What is the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition?

A necessary condition must be present for an outcome to occur (without it, no outcome); a sufficient condition guarantees the outcome on its own. In $P \to Q$, P is sufficient for Q and Q is necessary for P.

What is hypothetical reasoning?

Reasoning that explores the consequences of a supposition ('what if...') without asserting that the supposition is actually true, in order to test or trace its implications.

What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument?

In a valid deductive argument the conclusion follows with certainty if the premises are true; in an inductive argument the premises make the conclusion probable but not guaranteed.

What is the difference between a 'valid' argument and a 'sound' argument?

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the premises; it is sound if it is valid and all its premises are actually true.

When evaluating an argument, what is the proper order of questions to ask about its evidence?

First ask whether the evidence is relevant to the claim, then whether it is reliable/credible, then whether it is sufficient to support the strength of the conclusion drawn.

What is an 'inference' in critical analysis?

An inference is a conclusion reached by reasoning from evidence or premises rather than from direct statement — it is what the passage logically implies but does not explicitly say.