I85PREP
⌘ K
Kerala +2 Philosophy study materials
Kerala +2 Philosophy study resources

Kerala +2 Philosophy practice questions

One question at a time. Build your Kerala +2 Philosophy understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Philosophy is often distinguished from the special sciences by its concern with which kind of question?

  1. Questions about the administrative rules governing school examinations
  2. Questions about the most general features of reality, knowledge and value that no single empirical science settles Correct answer.
  3. Questions about the statistical sampling methods used in opinion polling
  4. Questions about the measurement of chemical reaction rates under controlled laboratory conditions

Explanation

Philosophy is characterised as a second-order or reflective discipline that examines the most general and foundational questions about being, knowledge and value. The special sciences study particular regions of reality with their own empirical methods, whereas philosophy asks how those enterprises are possible and what their basic concepts mean.

Question 2Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

The word 'philosophy' is derived from Greek roots meaning:

  1. Love of wisdom Correct answer.
  2. Search for pleasure
  3. Study of numbers
  4. Love of argument

Explanation

The term comes from the Greek 'philosophia', combining 'philein' (to love) and 'sophia' (wisdom). Pythagoras is traditionally credited with calling himself a lover of wisdom rather than a possessor of it, marking philosophy as an ongoing pursuit rather than a finished body of doctrine.

Question 3Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Which pair of traditional divisions best captures the standard branches of philosophy?

  1. Grammar and rhetoric, alongside phonetics and semantics
  2. Metaphysics and epistemology, alongside logic, ethics and aesthetics Correct answer.
  3. Accounting and auditing, alongside taxation and marketing
  4. Botany and zoology, alongside geology and meteorology

Explanation

The standard map of philosophy includes metaphysics (the study of reality), epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic (the study of valid reasoning), ethics (the study of conduct and value) and aesthetics (the study of beauty and art). These branches are distinguished by the kind of question asked rather than by the objects studied.

Question 4Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A student asks whether a claim can be counted as knowledge when the person believing it has no justification for it. This question belongs most directly to:

  1. Epistemology Correct answer.
  2. Logic
  3. Aesthetics
  4. Ethics

Explanation

Epistemology examines the nature, sources and limits of knowledge, including the conditions under which a true belief counts as knowledge. Justification is one of the standard conditions discussed in the classical analysis of knowledge as justified true belief.

Question 5Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

In philosophy, a method is best described as:

  1. A personal opinion that requires no defence
  2. A fixed list of approved answers that students must memorise
  3. A laboratory instrument used to measure physical quantities
  4. A reasoned procedure for formulating and testing answers to philosophical questions Correct answer.

Explanation

Philosophical method refers to the disciplined procedures by which philosophers clarify concepts, construct arguments and evaluate them. Method is what distinguishes philosophical inquiry from mere assertion, since every claim must be supported by reasons open to scrutiny.

Question 6Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Socratic method, as portrayed in Plato's early dialogues, proceeds chiefly by:

  1. Questioning an interlocutor's definitions until inconsistencies are exposed Correct answer.
  2. Appealing to majority vote to settle disputed definitions
  3. Conducting controlled experiments and recording measurements
  4. Reciting authoritative texts and accepting their conclusions without question

Explanation

The Socratic elenchus tests a proposed definition by drawing out consequences that conflict with other beliefs the speaker holds. The resulting aporia, or puzzlement, is treated as a productive stage in the pursuit of understanding rather than as a failure of the conversation.

Question 7Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Which statement best expresses the relationship between philosophy and the special sciences?

  1. Philosophy is a branch of physics that studies the behaviour of subatomic particles
  2. Philosophy replaces the special sciences by answering their empirical questions directly
  3. Philosophy and the special sciences are identical in method and subject matter
  4. Philosophy examines the presuppositions and concepts that the special sciences take for granted Correct answer.

Explanation

Philosophy works at a reflective level, asking what causation, explanation, evidence or a scientific law actually is. The special sciences presuppose such notions in practice, and philosophy's task is to clarify them rather than to duplicate empirical research.

Question 8Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A thinker argues that a statement is meaningful only if it can be verified by experience. This position is characteristic of:

  1. Rationalist metaphysics
  2. Scholastic realism
  3. Existentialist ethics
  4. Logical positivism Correct answer.

Explanation

The verification principle was advanced by logical positivists of the Vienna Circle to demarcate meaningful empirical discourse from metaphysical speculation. The principle famously generated difficulties about its own status, since the principle itself is not an empirical statement.

Question 9Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

In philosophical argument, a premise is:

  1. A statement offered as a reason in support of a conclusion Correct answer.
  2. The final claim that the argument seeks to establish
  3. An assumption that is always false by definition
  4. A rhetorical device used to persuade an audience emotionally

Explanation

An argument consists of premises plus a conclusion, where the premises are put forward as evidence or grounds for accepting the conclusion. Identifying premises and conclusion correctly is the first step in evaluating whether the reasoning is sound.

Question 10Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

An argument is described as deductively valid when:

  1. Its conclusion is widely accepted by experts in the field
  2. Its premises make the conclusion merely probable
  3. Its premises are in fact all true in the actual world
  4. It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false Correct answer.

Explanation

Validity concerns the logical relation between premises and conclusion, not the actual truth of the premises. An argument can be valid while having false premises, and an argument with true premises can still be invalid if the conclusion does not follow.

Question 11Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A philosopher asks what the word 'justice' really means and tries to state conditions that cover every genuine case of justice while excluding everything else. This activity is best called:

  1. Historical narration
  2. Conceptual analysis Correct answer.
  3. Empirical generalisation
  4. Statistical inference

Explanation

Conceptual analysis seeks necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct application of a concept. It proceeds by testing proposed definitions against imagined cases, which is why thought experiments play such a prominent role in the method.

Question 12Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A philosopher constructs an imagined case in which a person is deceived in a perfectly realistic way and then asks whether the person still knows anything. Such a device is called:

  1. A controlled trial
  2. A documentary record
  3. A thought experiment Correct answer.
  4. A survey questionnaire

Explanation

Thought experiments test our concepts by describing hypothetical situations and eliciting intuitive judgements about them. They function as arguments in miniature, since the imagined case is meant to support or undermine a general philosophical thesis.

Question 13Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

The claim that philosophical problems are really confusions produced by the misuse of language is most closely associated with:

  1. Ordinary language philosophy in the Wittgensteinian tradition Correct answer.
  2. Utilitarian moral calculus
  3. Platonic theory of Forms
  4. Thomistic natural law theory

Explanation

Later Wittgenstein and the ordinary language philosophers held that many traditional puzzles dissolve once we attend carefully to how words are actually used in their everyday settings. On this view the philosopher's task is therapeutic clarification rather than the construction of grand metaphysical systems.

Question 14Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Phenomenological method, as developed by Husserl, directs the inquirer to:

  1. Formalise arguments in a symbolic notation
  2. Reduce all mental states to measurable neural firings
  3. Describe the structures of experience as they present themselves to consciousness Correct answer.
  4. Derive moral duties from a single supreme principle

Explanation

Husserl's phenomenology aims at a presuppositionless description of phenomena as they appear in conscious experience, often employing the epoché or bracketing of assumptions about existence. The method treats lived experience itself as the primary field of philosophical investigation.

Question 15Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Which of the following best illustrates the method of dialectic as practised in classical Indian philosophical debate?

  1. Stating an opponent's position, examining its consequences, and defending a revised thesis against objections Correct answer.
  2. Observing the stars to predict the outcome of a battle
  3. Accepting the teacher's words without examining counterarguments
  4. Performing ritual actions to obtain a desired worldly result

Explanation

Indian philosophical traditions developed highly structured debate procedures in which a thesis (pratijñā), reasons and replies to objections were carefully set out. The Nyāya tradition in particular systematised the components of sound argument and the varieties of fallacious reasoning.

Question 16Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A theorist claims that philosophy must begin from the concrete facts of human existence, freedom and anxiety rather than from abstract systems. This approach is characteristic of:

  1. Positivist sociology
  2. Classical empiricism
  3. Existentialism Correct answer.
  4. Logical atomism

Explanation

Existentialist thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre held that abstract philosophical systems miss the lived reality of the existing individual. Their method is descriptive and engaged rather than system-building in the manner of Hegel.

Question 17Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A student claims that because two philosophers disagree, philosophy has no method at all. Which criticism of this reasoning is most appropriate?

  1. Disagreement demonstrates that only empirical science has a method
  2. Disagreement proves that one of the two philosophers must be lying
  3. Disagreement about conclusions is compatible with shared standards of argument and evidence Correct answer.
  4. Disagreement shows that philosophical questions are meaningless

Explanation

Method is a matter of the procedures used to assess claims, not of convergence on a single answer. Sciences also contain persistent disagreement among competent researchers while retaining shared evidential standards, so disagreement alone does not show that no method exists.

Question 18Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

Which of the following is a second-order philosophical question rather than a first-order question within a science?

  1. What is the half-life of a given radioactive isotope?
  2. What makes a piece of reasoning a valid deduction? Correct answer.
  3. At what temperature does water boil at sea level?
  4. How many species of amphibian live in the Western Ghats?

Explanation

A second-order question asks about the standards, concepts or presuppositions of inquiry itself, and the nature of valid deduction is exactly such a question. The other options are first-order empirical questions answered by measurement and observation within particular sciences.

Question 19Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A philosopher offers an argument whose premises are all true and whose conclusion follows necessarily from them. The argument is therefore:

  1. Invalid
  2. Inductively strong but deductively weak
  3. Sound Correct answer.
  4. Persuasive but unsupported

Explanation

Soundness requires both validity and the actual truth of every premise, so an argument meeting both conditions is sound. This is a stronger evaluation than validity alone, which guarantees only that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

Question 20Introduction to Philosophy: Nature, Scope and Methods

A critic says that a proposed definition of 'knowledge' is too narrow. What has the critic shown?

  1. That the definition includes cases that are not knowledge
  2. That some genuine cases of knowledge fail to satisfy the definition Correct answer.
  3. That the definition is circular in its wording
  4. That the definition is expressed in ambiguous language

Explanation

A definition is too narrow when it excludes items that should fall under the concept, and too broad when it includes items that should not. Circularity and ambiguity are separate defects concerning the wording rather than the extension of the definition.

Question 21Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In Aristotelian logic, which pair of categorical propositions is related by the square of opposition as contradictories?

  1. A proposition and its corresponding O proposition Correct answer.
  2. A proposition and its corresponding E proposition
  3. I proposition and its corresponding O proposition
  4. A proposition and its corresponding I proposition

Explanation

Contradictories differ in both quantity and quality, so they can never share the same truth value: if one is true the other is false. The A and O propositions, and likewise the E and I propositions, form the contradictory pairs on the square of opposition.

Question 22Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A categorical syllogism has the mood EIO in the second figure. Which statement about it is correct?

  1. It is valid because a negative conclusion follows from a negative premise.
  2. It is invalid because the conclusion is affirmative while a premise is negative.
  3. It is invalid because the middle term is undistributed in both premises. Correct answer.
  4. It is valid because the middle term is distributed in the major premise.

Explanation

In the second figure the middle term occupies the predicate position in both premises. An E premise distributes its predicate, but an I premise does not, so the middle term is distributed only once and the syllogism commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. Hence EIO-2, though it has the right quality pattern, is invalid.

Question 23Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which of the following best states the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

  1. From 'if p then q' and 'q', infer 'p'. Correct answer.
  2. From 'p or q' and 'not p', infer 'q'.
  3. From 'if p then q' and 'p', infer 'q'.
  4. From 'if p then q' and 'not p', infer 'not q'.

Explanation

Affirming the consequent treats a sufficient condition as if it were necessary. Even when q is true, p need not be its only possible cause, so concluding p from 'if p then q' plus q is invalid.

Question 24Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A student argues: 'Every experiment we ran in the lab confirmed the law, so the law must hold universally.' Which problem does this reasoning illustrate?

  1. The naturalistic fallacy, since facts are derived from values
  2. The problem of induction, since finite observations cannot deductively guarantee a universal law Correct answer.
  3. The genetic fallacy, since the origin of a belief is used to judge it
  4. The fallacy of composition, since parts are confused with wholes

Explanation

Inductive reasoning moves from observed instances to a general claim, and no finite set of confirming cases can logically entail a universal law. The conclusion may be probable but is never deductively certain, which is the classic problem of induction.

Question 25Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In Mill's methods, which method involves holding all circumstances constant except one, and observing whether the effect varies with that single factor?

  1. Method of residues
  2. Method of difference
  3. Method of agreement
  4. Method of concomitant variation Correct answer.

Explanation

The method of concomitant variation identifies a causal link when changes in one circumstance are regularly accompanied by proportional changes in the phenomenon. The other methods compare cases of presence and absence rather than tracking degrees of variation.

Question 26Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which statement correctly distinguishes deductive from inductive arguments?

  1. Inductive arguments are always invalid, while deductive arguments are always sound.
  2. Deductive arguments always have true premises, while inductive arguments never do.
  3. Deductive arguments aim at validity, while inductive arguments aim at strength or probability. Correct answer.
  4. Deductive arguments generalize from particulars, while inductive arguments move from generals to particulars.

Explanation

The central contrast is evaluative: a deductive argument is assessed as valid or invalid depending on whether the premises guarantee the conclusion, whereas an inductive argument is assessed as strong or weak depending on how probable it makes the conclusion.

Question 27Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A researcher tests whether a new teaching method improves scores. She assigns students randomly to method and control groups but does not tell the scorers which group each script came from. Which feature of experimental design is illustrated by keeping scorers unaware?

  1. Operational definition of variables
  2. Blinding to reduce experimenter bias Correct answer.
  3. Statistical significance testing
  4. Random sampling of the population

Explanation

Blinding conceals group membership from those who might be influenced by expectations, thereby reducing bias in measurement. Random assignment controls selection effects, but keeping scorers unaware specifically addresses observer bias.

Question 28Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which of the following is a necessary condition for 'Ravi will pass the examination'?

  1. Ravi will pass the examination if and only if he attends all classes.
  2. Ravi will pass the examination only if he attends all classes. Correct answer.
  3. Ravi will attend all classes if he passes the examination.
  4. Ravi attends all classes and passes the examination.

Explanation

A necessary condition is something without which the outcome cannot occur, expressed by 'only if'. Saying Ravi passes only if he attends all classes means attendance is required for passing, though attendance alone may not suffice.

Question 29Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In propositional logic, a well-formed formula is a tautology when which of the following holds?

  1. It is true under exactly half of the possible assignments.
  2. It is false under every assignment of truth values.
  3. It is true under every assignment of truth values. Correct answer.
  4. It is true under at least one assignment of truth values.

Explanation

A tautology is a formula whose truth table yields true on every row, such as 'p or not p'. This contrasts with a contingency, which is true on some rows and false on others.

Question 30Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which inference form is illustrated by: 'If the sample is random, the estimate is unbiased. The estimate is not unbiased. Therefore the sample is not random'?

  1. Modus tollens Correct answer.
  2. Affirming the consequent
  3. Modus ponens
  4. Denying the antecedent

Explanation

Modus tollens moves from a conditional and the denial of its consequent to the denial of its antecedent. Because the second premise negates the consequent, the valid conclusion negates the antecedent.

Question 31Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which of the following best describes the fallacy of equivocation?

  1. Assuming what is to be proved as a premise of the argument
  2. Appealing to the popularity of a belief as evidence for its truth
  3. Attacking a distorted version of an opponent's position instead of the actual position
  4. Using the same word in two different senses within one argument Correct answer.

Explanation

Equivocation trades on a shift in meaning: a term appears constant in the argument's wording but carries different senses in different premises. The argument's apparent validity depends on that unnoticed ambiguity.

Question 32Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A theory predicts a specific observation that would be very unlikely if the theory were false. The observation is then made. In hypothetico-deductive terms, what has occurred?

  1. The theory has been rendered meaningless because it cannot be tested.
  2. The theory has been falsified by the observation.
  3. The theory has been conclusively proved true.
  4. The theory has survived a severe test and gained confirmation. Correct answer.

Explanation

In the hypothetico-deductive model, a successful risky prediction confirms a theory by showing it survives a test that could have refuted it. Confirmation increases support but never deductively proves a universal theory.

Question 33Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which of the following statements about the logical form 'All S are P' is correct?

  1. It is an I proposition with particular affirmative quality.
  2. It is an E proposition with universal negative quality.
  3. It is an A proposition with universal affirmative quality. Correct answer.
  4. It is an O proposition with particular negative quality.

Explanation

The four categorical forms are labelled by vowel: A is universal affirmative, E universal negative, I particular affirmative, and O particular negative. 'All S are P' is therefore the A proposition.

Question 34Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In a Venn diagram test for syllogistic validity, a syllogism is valid when which condition is met?

  1. The diagram of the premises leaves every region shaded.
  2. The conclusion adds new information not contained in the premises.
  3. The middle term appears in the conclusion as well as the premises.
  4. The conclusion is already represented in the diagram of the premises alone. Correct answer.

Explanation

A syllogism is valid exactly when its conclusion is contained in the information given by its premises. In a Venn diagram, the conclusion must already be depicted once the premises are drawn, without any additional marking.

Question 35Logic and Scientific Reasoning

What does it mean to say that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable?

  1. It must already have been shown to be false by experiment.
  2. It must be accepted by the majority of researchers in the field.
  3. It must be mathematically expressed in quantitative form.
  4. It must be stated so that some conceivable observation would count against it. Correct answer.

Explanation

Falsifiability is a logical property of a hypothesis: it must exclude some possible observations, so that evidence could count against it. A claim compatible with every conceivable outcome makes no testable prediction.

Question 36Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A sample is drawn by selecting every tenth name from an alphabetically ordered list of all students in a college. Which sampling method is this?

  1. Systematic sampling Correct answer.
  2. Quota sampling
  3. Simple random sampling
  4. Stratified sampling

Explanation

Systematic sampling selects units at fixed intervals from an ordered list after a random start. It differs from simple random sampling, where each unit is chosen independently by chance.

Question 37Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which of the following is an example of a correlational claim rather than a causal claim?

  1. Increasing the dose of the fertilizer causes taller plants.
  2. Students who sleep more tend to score higher on tests. Correct answer.
  3. Adding salt to water causes its boiling point to rise.
  4. Lowering the room temperature causes the reaction to slow down.

Explanation

A correlational claim asserts only that two variables vary together, without asserting that one produces the other. Statements using 'causes' make a stronger causal commitment that requires experimental or other supporting evidence.

Question 38Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In a controlled experiment, a confounding variable is best described as which of the following?

  1. A variable deliberately manipulated by the experimenter to observe its effect
  2. A variable that is measured as the outcome of the experiment
  3. An extraneous variable that varies along with the independent variable and can distort the result Correct answer.
  4. A variable held constant across all conditions of the experiment

Explanation

A confound is an unintended variable that changes systematically with the factor under study, so the observed effect cannot be attributed cleanly to that factor. Good design uses random assignment or control to break such associations.

Question 39Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which criticism is standardly raised against the method of agreement as a method of causal discovery?

  1. It can never identify any common circumstance across cases.
  2. Several candidate circumstances may be common to the cases, so it cannot isolate a unique cause. Correct answer.
  3. It applies only to cases in which the effect is absent.
  4. It requires quantitative measurement of the effect, which is often unavailable.

Explanation

The method of agreement collects cases sharing the effect and looks for a shared circumstance, but multiple circumstances may be common to all of them. Without further comparative methods, it cannot determine which shared factor is causally relevant.

Question 40Logic and Scientific Reasoning

What is the fallacy of composition?

  1. Inferring that what is true of a whole must be true of each of its parts
  2. Inferring that what is true of each part must be true of the whole Correct answer.
  3. Inferring the cause of an event from its temporal priority alone
  4. Inferring a general rule from a single unrepresentative example

Explanation

Composition wrongly transfers a property of individual parts to the collection as a whole, as when one argues that because each player is excellent the team must be excellent. The reverse inference, from whole to parts, is division.

Question 41Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Consider the argument: 'Either the experiment was flawed or the result is genuine. The experiment was not flawed. Therefore the result is genuine.' Which form does this argument take?

  1. Modus tollens
  2. Constructive dilemma
  3. Hypothetical syllogism
  4. Disjunctive syllogism Correct answer.

Explanation

A disjunctive syllogism has a disjunctive premise and a second premise denying one disjunct, yielding the other disjunct as conclusion. The form is valid provided the disjunction is exclusive as stated.

Question 42Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A newspaper reports that towns with more churches have higher crime rates and concludes that churches cause crime. Which criticism is most directly relevant?

  1. A third factor such as population size may explain both variables, so the causal conclusion is unwarranted. Correct answer.
  2. The argument begs the question by assuming what it sets out to prove.
  3. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation on the word 'church'.
  4. The argument is invalid because it uses a particular rather than a universal premise.

Explanation

Correlation between two variables does not establish that one causes the other, because a common cause may produce both. Larger towns tend to have both more churches and more reported crimes, so population size is a plausible confound.

Question 43Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which pair of categorical propositions is related as subalterns on the square of opposition?

  1. A and E
  2. I and O
  3. E and O
  4. A and I Correct answer.

Explanation

Subalternation links a universal proposition to the particular proposition of the same quality, so A stands to I and E stands to O. Truth of the universal implies truth of its subaltern particular.

Question 44Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In a truth table, how many rows are required to evaluate a formula containing three distinct propositional variables?

  1. Six rows
  2. Three rows
  3. Nine rows
  4. Eight rows Correct answer.

Explanation

Each distinct variable doubles the number of possible truth-value assignments, so n variables require 2 to the power n rows. For three variables this gives two cubed, which is eight rows.

Question 45Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A student claims that because a hypothesis has not been disproved despite many tests, it has been proved true. Which methodological error is involved?

  1. Confusing the failure to falsify a hypothesis with positive proof of its truth Correct answer.
  2. Treating a statistical sample as if it were the whole population
  3. Committing the fallacy of equivocation on 'test'
  4. Confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition

Explanation

Surviving tests shows only that a hypothesis has not yet been refuted, which is consistent with its being false in ways not yet detected. Treating non-refutation as proof ignores the asymmetry between confirmation and falsification.

Question 46Logic and Scientific Reasoning

In Mill's method of difference, two cases are compared. What feature must the compared cases have for the method to be applied correctly?

  1. The cases must differ in every circumstance except one, which is present in both.
  2. The cases must be identical in all respects, including the circumstance under investigation.
  3. The cases must agree in every circumstance except one, which is present in one case and absent in the other. Correct answer.
  4. The cases must increase in the same direction as the effect under investigation.

Explanation

The method of difference requires two instances that are alike in all relevant circumstances except one: the circumstance present in the case where the effect occurs and absent where it does not. If the effect appears only when that single factor is added, the factor is identified as the cause or a necessary part of it. This controlled contrast is what distinguishes the method from the method of agreement.

Question 47Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A student argues: 'Every member of the debating team is intelligent. Therefore the debating team as a whole is intelligent.' Which fallacy does this argument commit?

  1. Begging the question
  2. Composition Correct answer.
  3. False dilemma
  4. Division

Explanation

The fallacy of composition infers a property of a whole from a property of its parts or members. Here intelligence is predicated of each individual member and then transferred to the collective team, which does not follow. The reverse inference, from whole to part, would be the fallacy of division.

Question 48Logic and Scientific Reasoning

A researcher reasons: 'In every observed case where cholera broke out, the water supply came from the same polluted well; in nearby districts using other wells there were no outbreaks. The polluted water is therefore the cause.' Which Mill's method does this reasoning primarily rely on?

  1. Method of residues
  2. Method of concomitant variation
  3. Joint method of agreement and difference Correct answer.
  4. Method of agreement

Explanation

The reasoning combines two comparisons: outbreaks agree in sharing the polluted well, and cases lacking the polluted well lack the outbreak. Using both the positive agreement and the negative contrast is the joint method of agreement and difference, which Mill regarded as stronger than agreement alone. Pure agreement would look only at the cases where the effect occurs.

Question 49Logic and Scientific Reasoning

'If the library closes early, then the reading room is dark. The reading room is dark. Therefore the library closed early.' Why is this argument invalid?

  1. Because a conditional premise can never support any conclusion.
  2. Because affirming the antecedent does not guarantee the truth of the consequent.
  3. Because affirming the consequent treats a sufficient condition as if it were necessary. Correct answer.
  4. Because the first premise is a biconditional rather than a conditional.

Explanation

The argument affirms the consequent of a conditional and concludes the antecedent, which is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The conditional states only that early closing is sufficient for a dark room; other causes of darkness are compatible with the premises. Treating a sufficient condition as a necessary one is exactly the error involved.

Question 50Logic and Scientific Reasoning

Which statement best captures the problem of induction as raised by Hume?

  1. Inductive reasoning is invalid because its conclusions are logically entailed by the premises.
  2. Inductive generalisation is unjustified because no non-circular reason can establish that the future will resemble the past. Correct answer.
  3. Inductive inference is deductively valid whenever the sample is large enough.
  4. Inductive arguments are worthless because they never yield conclusions more probable than their premises.

Explanation

Hume argued that any attempt to justify induction must rely on the uniformity of nature, and that this uniformity can itself be supported only by inductive reasoning, making the justification circular. Experience shows constant conjunction but not a necessary connection that would guarantee the future resembles the past. Hence induction lacks a non-circular rational foundation, even though we rely on it habitually.