All Free Analytical and Logical Reasoning MCQs with Answers

21. "This medicine is safe because it is natural." The flaw in this argument is that it

• A. assumes that being natural guarantees safety, which many natural poisons disprove
• B. uses an unreliable source
• C. is circular
• D. attacks the manufacturer

Explanation: Snake venom, arsenic and deadly nightshade are all entirely natural, so the premise does not support the conclusion. This is the appeal to nature fallacy. Safety is established by testing, not by origin.

22. Statement: "Two students in this class failed, so the teaching must be poor." The flaw is that it

• A. generalises from a very small and unrepresentative sample
• B. appeals to emotion
• C. presents a false dilemma
• D. reverses cause and effect

Explanation: Two cases say nothing about a whole class, and the failures might reflect absence, illness or individual circumstances rather than teaching quality. A hasty generalisation draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence. The pass rate of the whole class compared with other classes would be the relevant data.

23. "The policy must be right because it is government policy, and government policy is always right." This argument is

• A. circular, assuming what it sets out to prove
• B. based on strong evidence
• C. a false dilemma
• D. an appeal to emotion

Explanation: The conclusion is smuggled into the premise, so the argument goes round in a circle and offers no independent support. Circular reasoning is also called begging the question. A sound argument must rest on premises that can be accepted without already accepting the conclusion.

24. All students who scored above 90 received a scholarship. Ayesha received a scholarship. Which conclusion is valid?

• A. Ayesha scored above 90
• B. Ayesha may or may not have scored above 90
• C. Ayesha scored below 90
• D. Ayesha did not sit the exam

Explanation: The statement guarantees a scholarship to high scorers but does not say they are the only recipients, so a scholarship could have been awarded on other grounds such as need or sport. Concluding that she scored above 90 would be affirming the consequent, a classic invalid form. Reversing a conditional statement is never automatically valid.

25. Which conclusion follows from: "No reptile is warm blooded. All snakes are reptiles."?

• A. Some snakes are warm blooded
• B. No snake is warm blooded
• C. All warm blooded animals are snakes
• D. Some reptiles are snakes only

Explanation: Snakes fall entirely within reptiles, and reptiles are entirely excluded from the warm blooded category, so snakes are excluded too. This is a valid syllogism of the form no A is B, all C are A, therefore no C is B. Drawing the two circles on paper makes the exclusion obvious.

26. A study finds that people who eat breakfast weigh less. A critic responds that people who skip breakfast may be dieting unsuccessfully. The critic is

• A. suggesting the causal direction may be reversed or confounded
• B. attacking the researchers personally
• C. appealing to authority
• D. using circular reasoning

Explanation: The critic proposes that being overweight leads to skipping breakfast rather than the other way round, which challenges the direction of the causal arrow. Offering a plausible alternative explanation is the standard way to weaken an observational finding. It does not prove the original claim wrong, only unsupported.

27. "If we allow students to retake one exam, soon they will demand unlimited retakes and standards will collapse." This argument is an example of

• A. a slippery slope
• B. an appeal to authority
• C. a hasty generalisation
• D. a false dilemma

Explanation: A slippery slope claims that one modest step will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome without showing why each stage must follow. The chain may be plausible, but it has to be argued rather than assumed. Asking what makes the next step inevitable is the way to test it.

28. Some medicines are expensive. All expensive things are not affordable for everyone. Which conclusion follows?

• A. Some medicines are not affordable for everyone
• B. All medicines are unaffordable
• C. No medicine is affordable
• D. All expensive things are medicines

Explanation: The first statement covers only part of the class of medicines, so any valid conclusion must also be limited to some. Extending it to all medicines goes beyond what the premises support. The last option reverses the relationship, which is never valid.

29. Which of the following is a statement of fact rather than opinion?

• A. Karachi is the best city in Pakistan
• B. Karachi is the most populous city in Pakistan
• C. Karachi should receive more funding
• D. Karachi's weather is unpleasant

Explanation: A fact can be checked against evidence such as census data, whereas best, should and unpleasant all express judgements that different people could reasonably dispute. Distinguishing the two is the first step in evaluating any argument. Words expressing evaluation or obligation usually signal opinion.

30. A hospital reports that more accidents happen on days when more ice cream is sold. The most likely explanation is that

• A. ice cream causes accidents
• B. accidents cause ice cream sales
• C. both rise in hot weather, which is a common cause
• D. the report is fabricated

Explanation: Hot weather increases both outdoor activity, and therefore accidents, and ice cream sales, so the two are linked through a third variable rather than to each other. This is the textbook example of a confounding variable. Neither of the direct causal readings makes sense on inspection.