Evaluating Complex Reasoning — Practice · Grade 12 English

Chapter: Argument & Rhetoric

What this practice covers

By the end of Evaluating Complex Reasoning you should be able to:

11 questions, multiple choice and written answer, each with a worked explanation.

Vocabulary used: premise, warrant, sufficiency, inductive reasoning, circular reasoning.

Problem 1

An argument is 'valid' but 'unsound' when…
  1. the conclusion follows logically from the premises, but at least one premise is false
  2. it relies too heavily on emotional language
  3. the conclusion is true and every premise is also true
  4. it contains no evidence of any kind
Answer and explanation

the conclusion follows logically from the premises, but at least one premise is false

Validity concerns the logical form; soundness also requires true premises. A valid argument built on a false premise is valid but unsound.

Problem 2

'We should trust the committee's judgment because the committee is trustworthy.' This is an example of…
  1. a false analogy
  2. sufficient inductive evidence
  3. circular reasoning (begging the question)
  4. a valid deductive syllogism
Answer and explanation

circular reasoning (begging the question)

The statement assumes the very thing it claims to prove — the committee's trustworthiness is both the premise and the conclusion — which is circular reasoning.

Problem 3

Explain the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and state the main question you should ask to evaluate an inductive argument.
Answer and explanation

Deductive reasoning claims its conclusion follows with necessity from its premises, so you evaluate it by asking whether it is valid and whether the premises are true. Inductive reasoning moves from specific cases toward a general conclusion and yields probability, not certainty, so you evaluate it by asking whether the sample is sufficient and representative — large enough, not cherry-picked, and drawn from genuinely independent sources — to make the general conclusion likely.

Problem 4

A columnist writes: 'A famous physicist says this diet is the healthiest one, so it must be.' The main flaw is…
  1. an appeal to emotion
  2. a misuse of authority — citing a real expert outside the field where their expertise applies
  3. a false dilemma between two options
  4. circular reasoning
Answer and explanation

a misuse of authority — citing a real expert outside the field where their expertise applies

Physics expertise does not transfer to nutrition; borrowing an authority's credibility outside their actual field is a misuse of authority, not genuine support.

Problem 5

A report notes that neighborhoods with more coffee shops also have lower crime rates, and concludes that opening coffee shops reduces crime. What is the strongest critique?
  1. The evidence about coffee shops is entirely irrelevant to crime.
  2. It mistakes correlation for causation — a third factor such as rising neighborhood wealth could drive both more coffee shops and lower crime — and it offers no evidence that the shops themselves cause the drop.
  3. There is no actual claim being made in the passage.
  4. The reasoning is valid and sound, with no flaw to identify.
Answer and explanation

It mistakes correlation for causation — a third factor such as rising neighborhood wealth could drive both more coffee shops and lower crime — and it offers no evidence that the shops themselves cause the drop.

Two things moving together does not establish that one causes the other; a lurking third factor (such as gentrification or wealth) could explain both, and the report supplies no causal evidence.

Problem 6

Identify the reasoning gap and improve the conclusion. Give a detail and explain its relevance.
Answer and explanation

The sequence shows association, not established causation. Absence may change with season or illness. A qualified conclusion would report the change and call for comparison with other factors.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 7

A learner writes: “The author is wrong because I prefer shorter hours.” Explain the problem and produce a better response.
Answer and explanation

A preference does not test the evidence. Evaluate who was surveyed, how the count was collected, and whether the conclusion exceeds the finding.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 8

Compare what you must inspect in these two cases. What can transfer, and what must be checked again?
Answer and explanation

Separate a claim, reasons, evidence, and the assumption connecting them. A count can support a narrow observation without establishing a broad conclusion. The method transfers, but the particular detail, scope, and context must be read again. The sequence shows association, not established causation. Absence may change with season or illness. A qualified conclusion would report the change and call for comparison with other factors.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 9

Using an assigned reading or one exercise source, write a developed response applying evaluating complex reasoning. Aim for 300–450 words; name the reading or reproduce the sentence you revise.
Answer and explanation

The count supports demand among most responding club members. It cannot represent all students without broader sampling. A survey including nonusers and a staffed pilot could test general demand. A complete response supplies context, a focused claim, a brief supporting detail, explanation, and a relevant qualification. Do not simply repeat this model.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 10

Write two specific feedback comments on a response to this unit: one on accuracy or meaning and one on evidence or language. Then state a revision priority.
Answer and explanation

Check whether the response explains separate a claim, reasons, evidence, and the assumption connecting them. a count can support a narrow observation without establishing a broad conclusion. Ask for a relevant detail and the reason it supports the conclusion. Prioritize the mistaken assumption shown here: “The author is wrong because I prefer shorter hours.”

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 11

Choose a fresh sentence or detail from the assigned selection. Explain how this unit’s method applies, and identify one uncertainty or limitation.
Answer and explanation

The contractor’s attractiveness rating does not establish faithful representation; the coalition identifies a possible distortion without measuring its frequency. The staffing memo supports a bounded review pilot with costs and limits clearly stated. The response must supply its own precise detail and explain it; copying the model without fresh evidence is insufficient.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Browse all courses