Examius
🇬🇧 Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT) · flashcards
Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT) Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) Flashcards
50 question-and-answer cards covering Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) as it is examined in Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT). 24 of them are printed below, taken from across the deck — no signup, no paywall on the preview.
24 sample cards from the Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) deck
Sampled from the end of the deck, so these are different cards from the ones shown on the syllabus page.
What is the 'appeal to authority' fallacy?
Treating a claim as true merely because an authority figure asserts it, especially when the authority is irrelevant, biased, or not a genuine expert on the matter.
What is the 'appeal to popularity' (bandwagon / ad populum) fallacy?
Arguing that a claim is true or right simply because many people believe it or do it, as though popularity were evidence of truth.
What is the fallacy of 'hasty generalisation'?
Drawing a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative or insufficiently small sample of cases.
What is 'equivocation' as a logical fallacy?
Using a single word or phrase in two different senses within the same argument, so that the conclusion appears to follow only because of the shifting meaning.
What is the 'appeal to emotion' (pathos abuse) fallacy?
Trying to win an argument by arousing feelings such as fear, pity or anger rather than by providing relevant reasons or evidence.
What are the three classical rhetorical appeals identified by Aristotle?
Ethos (appeal to the speaker's credibility/character), pathos (appeal to the audience's emotions), and logos (appeal to logic and reason).
What is a 'rhetorical question' as a persuasive device?
A question posed for effect, not to gain information, where the answer is implied or assumed — used to lead the reader toward the author's intended view without arguing for it explicitly.
Name three common rhetorical/persuasive devices beyond the rhetorical question.
Hyperbole (deliberate exaggeration), repetition (for emphasis), and the rule of three / tricolon (grouping ideas in threes). Others include analogy, anecdote, and emotive imagery.
What is meant by an author's 'tone'?
Tone is the author's attitude toward the subject as conveyed through word choice and style — e.g. ironic, sceptical, indignant, dispassionate, sympathetic or sarcastic.
What is 'author bias' and how can it be detected?
Author bias is a one-sided slant favouring a particular viewpoint. It is detected through selective evidence, loaded language, ignoring counterarguments, emotive appeals, and unsupported sweeping claims.
How do you identify an author's 'attitude' toward their subject?
Examine connotations of word choices, the balance of positive vs negative descriptions, use of emotive or evaluative language, and whether opposing views are treated fairly or dismissively.
What is 'loaded' or 'emotive' language?
Words chosen for their strong positive or negative connotations to influence the reader's feelings rather than to convey neutral information — e.g. 'regime' vs 'government', 'slaughter' vs 'kill'.
Give an example of how emotive word choice changes the tone of a neutral statement.
"Protesters gathered" is neutral; "a mob swarmed" carries negative emotive loading; "campaigners rallied" carries positive loading. The underlying fact is the same; the connotation steers the reader's response.
What kind of evidence would support a claim?
Evidence that, if true, makes the claim more likely — relevant data, confirming examples, expert testimony, or facts that the claim predicts. Strengthening evidence fills gaps the argument relies on.
What kind of evidence would undermine (weaken) a claim?
Evidence that, if true, makes the claim less likely — counterexamples, contradictory data, an alternative explanation, evidence of a confounder, or facts inconsistent with what the claim predicts.
In a strengthen/weaken question, what makes a piece of additional information 'relevant'?
It is relevant if it bears directly on the link between the argument's premises and conclusion — affecting the truth of an assumption or the support for the claim. Information that does not touch this link is irrelevant regardless of how interesting it is.
What is a 'counterargument'?
A counterargument is a reason or piece of evidence that opposes the main conclusion — an objection raised against the author's position.
What is a 'rebuttal' in argumentation?
A rebuttal is the author's response to a counterargument, attempting to neutralise or refute the objection and thereby strengthen the original conclusion.
Why might an author include a counterargument they then rebut?
To appear balanced and credible, to pre-empt the reader's objections, and to strengthen their own case by showing the opposing view has been considered and answered (a 'concede and rebut' structure).
What is the difference between a 'sound' and merely 'valid' argument?
A valid argument has a form where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is valid AND has all true premises. Validity is about structure; soundness adds factual truth.
What distinguishes deductive from inductive reasoning?
In deductive reasoning, true premises guarantee the conclusion (certainty). In inductive reasoning, premises make the conclusion probable but not certain — it generalises beyond the evidence.
What is the difference between a 'fact' and an 'opinion' in critical reading?
A fact is a verifiable statement that can be shown true or false; an opinion is a judgement, belief or evaluation that reflects a viewpoint and cannot be straightforwardly verified.
What three questions should you ask to evaluate any argument's reasoning?
1) Are the premises true/acceptable? 2) Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? 3) Do the premises provide sufficient support (logical connection) for the conclusion? Weakness in any one undermines the argument.
When a passage states a correlation and concludes a cause, what are the three standard ways to challenge it?
1) The correlation may be coincidental; 2) the causation may be reversed (effect treated as cause); 3) a confounding third variable may explain both. Showing any of these weakens the causal conclusion.
What this deck covers
The Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) deck follows the Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT) Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) syllabus — 4 chapters and 16 topics — so questions land on material that is genuinely examinable rather than trivia around it. That works out to roughly 12.5 cards per chapter.
Answers are written to be recallable, not just readable — averaging about 178 characters, which is long enough to carry the reasoning and short enough to say out loud.
A deck like this earns its keep on the second and third pass. Read the syllabus first so you know the shape of the subject, then use the cards to find the specific facts that have not stuck.
Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) flashcards FAQ
How many Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) flashcards are in this Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT) deck?
50 cards. This page previews 24 of them, sampled evenly across the deck so you can judge the difficulty before installing anything.
Are these Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT) flashcards free?
Yes. The preview here is free to read with no signup, and the full 50-card deck is free inside the Examius app.
What do the Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) cards cover?
They follow the Law National Aptitude Test (LNAT) Verbal Reasoning and Critical Thinking (Section A) syllabus — 4 chapters and 16 topics — so the questions track what is actually examinable.
How should I use these flashcards?
Read the syllabus first so you know the shape of the subject, then drill the deck. Examius schedules each card with spaced repetition, so cards you keep missing come back sooner and ones you know drift further apart.