1. A
Students who choose to eat breakfast may differ systematically from those who don’t in ways that affect test performance (structured homes, better study habits). This confounding variable means the breakfast itself may not be the cause of higher scores, weakening the conclusion that providing breakfast will improve all students’ scores.

2. B
The original statement says “successful lawyers → good communicators,” but the argument flips this to conclude “good communicator → successful lawyer.” This reverses the conditional relationship and commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because all successful lawyers are good communicators doesn’t mean all good communicators become successful lawyers.

3. A
The environmental groups are assuming that the bag ban is the primary reason for the 30% reduction in plastic waste. However, other factors could have contributed during the same period (recycling campaigns, economic changes, other environmental initiatives). Without ruling out alternative explanations, the causal claim is weakened.

4. B
The argument presents only two options (increase funding or have wrongful convictions) when other possibilities exist, such as improving public defender efficiency, reforming procedures, or implementing other safeguards. This false dilemma weakens the logical force of the argument.

5. A
Voting against one specific bill doesn’t necessarily mean opposing small businesses generally. The opponent might have had valid reasons (flaws in the bill, better alternative approaches, problematic provisions) while still supporting small businesses through other means. The argument oversimplifies the situation.

6. A
Countries differ in numerous ways beyond gun control laws—cultural attitudes toward violence, social cohesion, economic inequality, enforcement capabilities, existing gun ownership rates, and criminal justice systems. These differences could significantly affect whether similar laws would produce similar results elsewhere.

7. A
The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental legal protection. Defendants may have strategic legal reasons for not testifying (avoiding aggressive cross-examination, preventing prosecution from mischaracterizing testimony) that have nothing to do with guilt. The reasoning ignores these legitimate considerations.

8. A
While high income correlates with Harvard Law admission, this doesn’t mean income itself is necessary. High-income families often provide better educational opportunities, test preparation, extracurricular activities, and connections. The researcher confuses correlation with direct causation and ignores these mediating factors.

9. A
Two trends occurring simultaneously doesn’t prove one causes the other. Many other factors changed during the same 30 years (video games, social media, economic conditions, drug policy, demographic shifts). Without controlling for these variables or establishing a causal mechanism, the conclusion is unjustified.

10. A
Lower burdens of proof make it easier to find against defendants with less evidence. In civil cases involving significant consequences (reputation, financial damages), reducing the required level of certainty could lead to judgments against defendants without sufficient factual basis, potentially causing unjust outcomes.

11. A
The original premise states that among white-collar criminals, most are educated professionals. This doesn’t mean that among educated professionals, most are criminals. The reasoning reverses the relationship. If 1% of educated professionals commit such crimes, most criminals could still be professionals while most professionals are not criminals.

12. A
The argument’s strength depends entirely on the authority of human rights organizations rather than examining the law’s actual provisions, effects, or ethical principles. While expert opinion can be relevant, it shouldn’t replace substantive analysis of the law itself, especially since authorities can disagree or err.

13. A
Without knowing baseline crime rates, a 25% reduction in Town B might represent fewer prevented crimes than a 20% reduction in Town A if Town A had higher initial crime rates. Population differences, types of crimes, and other contextual factors are essential for meaningful comparison.

14. A
This follows valid modus tollens logic: If P then Q; not Q; therefore not P. If (duress) then (not binding); it is binding (not “not binding”); therefore no duress. The logical structure is valid regardless of whether the premises are factually true in any particular case.

15. A
Police departments typically allocate resources to areas with existing high crime rates. This reverse causation (crime causes police presence, not vice versa) explains the correlation without suggesting police cause crime. The criminologist failed to consider this obvious alternative explanation.

16. A
The argument falsely suggests only two possibilities exist: keep the death penalty or have skyrocketing murder rates. Many jurisdictions without capital punishment don’t experience dramatic increases in murder. Other factors and approaches to crime prevention are ignored by this false dichotomy.

17. A
The statistic is technically accurate but misleading because it suggests strong career outcomes while including any employment, even unrelated jobs. This selective presentation creates a false impression about graduates’ actual legal career success rates. Context about job types and relevance is critical information being withheld.

18. A
Oaths create legal and moral obligations, but they don’t prevent honest mistakes, faulty memories, misperceptions, or deliberate perjury. The reasoning assumes the oath itself ensures reliability when it merely establishes consequences for known dishonesty. Witnesses can be unreliable despite good-faith oath-taking.

19. A
Higher-scoring students might be more motivated to seek tutoring, creating selection bias. Without random assignment or controlling for pre-existing differences, we can’t determine if tutoring causes improvement or if already-stronger students simply choose to attend. Correlation doesn’t imply causation.

20. A
Majority support doesn’t make something morally right or good policy. Democratic legitimacy is important but distinct from moral justification. Majorities have historically supported unjust policies. The argument commits an ad populum fallacy by equating popularity with moral or practical correctness.