These are original Marlbridge practice questions, not past exam questions. Any passage not credited to a named public-domain author was written by Marlbridge for practice; quotations from named authors are public-domain texts quoted briefly. The rubrics are a suggested Marlbridge rubric to help you check your own work; they are not an official scoring guideline. There is no calculator. Try each question before opening its answer.
Question 1 (multiple choice · foundation)
“Since the new bus timetable began, the town has had more litter. The timetable must be to blame.” The flaw is best described as
- (A) circular reasoning
- (B) assuming that because one event followed another it caused the other
- (C) attacking a person
- (D) presenting only two options
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). The argument treats sequence as cause without considering other explanations.
- (A) is wrong: no claim is used to support itself.
- (C) is wrong: no person is attacked.
- (D) is wrong: no two-option choice is offered.
Question 2 (multiple choice · foundation)
“Either the council builds a new car park, or the town centre will die.” What is the main flaw?
- (A) It attacks a person.
- (B) It uses a statistic.
- (C) It repeats the claim.
- (D) It offers only two options when others exist, such as improving buses or pricing parking differently.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (D). A false dilemma ignores other possible courses of action.
- (A) is wrong: it attacks no one.
- (B) is wrong: it contains no statistic.
- (C) is wrong: it does not repeat itself.
Question 3 (multiple choice · core)
A writer argues: “Pupils should not be allowed to choose their own seats, because if they choose them, soon they’ll choose their own lessons, then their own timetables, and the school will collapse.” Which description of the flaw is most accurate?
- (A) It is a slippery slope: it asserts a chain of consequences without showing that any step will happen
- (B) It is a hasty generalisation from a single case
- (C) It is an appeal to authority
- (D) It is an ad hominem attack
Answer and explanation
Answer: (A). The chain from seats to lessons to collapse is asserted, not supported.
- (B) is wrong: no single case is generalised.
- (C) is wrong: no authority is cited.
- (D) is wrong: no person is attacked.
Question 4 (multiple choice · core)
A writer says: “Opponents of the new road want everyone to travel by horse and cart.” The opponents in fact want better buses. Which flaw is this?
- (A) Circular reasoning
- (B) Bandwagon
- (C) Straw man
- (D) Non sequitur
Answer and explanation
Answer: (C). The writer distorts the opposing view into an easily dismissed extreme.
- (A) is wrong: the sentence does not use its claim as its own proof.
- (B) is wrong: it does not argue from popularity.
- (D) is wrong: it does not draw an unconnected conclusion; it misrepresents a position.
Question 5 (multiple choice · core)
In “A Modest Proposal” (1729), the narrator says, “let no man talk to me of other expedients” just before a list of real remedies, such as taxing absentee landlords, that he refuses to hear about. Which statement best explains the writer’s purpose in using this flawed reasoning?
- (A) To show that the narrator has carefully considered every possible option
- (B) To give a sincere recommendation
- (C) To make the narrator’s reasoning visibly specious so that readers will question the callous premises behind real policies
- (D) To provide statistics
Answer and explanation
Answer: (C). The narrator shuts out alternatives while proposing something horrifying. The flawed reasoning is deliberate and satirical.
- (A) is wrong: the narrator refuses to consider alternatives.
- (B) is wrong: the proposal is satirical, not sincere.
- (D) is wrong: the sentence gives no statistics.
Question 6 (constructed response · core)
Read this paragraph, written by Marlbridge.
Three pupils I know got worse marks after joining the chess club, so chess clubs harm learning. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to promote their own club. Either we close all clubs or we accept falling standards.
Identify and explain three flaws.
Answer and explanation
Model answer. First, a hasty generalisation: three pupils are far too few, and may not be representative, to conclude that chess clubs harm learning. Also, the order of events (joined, then worse marks) is treated as cause without considering other reasons. Second, an ad hominem: the writer dismisses opponents by attributing a motive (promoting their own club) instead of answering their evidence. Third, a false dilemma: the writer says the only choices are to close all clubs or accept falling standards, which ignores options such as keeping clubs but limiting timings.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (5 points)
| Points | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Identifies a flaw in the first sentence (hasty generalisation or false cause) with explanation. |
| 1 | Identifies the ad hominem with explanation. |
| 1 | Identifies the false dilemma with explanation. |
| 1 | Each explanation says why the reasoning fails in this paragraph, not just the label. |
| 1 | At least one explanation refers to a specific phrase. |
Question 7 (constructed response · core)
Rewrite the paragraph in Question 6 (keeping the concern about marks) so that the reasoning is sound. Write three to four sentences that avoid the flaws.
Answer and explanation
Model answer. “Three pupils who joined the chess club saw their marks fall, but three cases are too few to show that the club is the cause. Other factors, such as a harder term or changes to homework, could also explain it. To test whether the club matters, the school could compare the marks of all members with those of similar non-members over a full year. Until then, it would be premature to close the club or to dismiss those who defend it.”
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (5 points)
| Points | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Does not claim cause from three cases. |
| 1 | Acknowledges other possible explanations. |
| 1 | Proposes a way to test the claim. |
| 1 | Treats opponents fairly, without ad hominem. |
| 1 | Avoids a false dilemma by allowing for other options. |
Question 8 (constructed response · stretch)
In “A Modest Proposal” (1729) Jonathan Swift’s narrator waves aside real remedies, such as taxing absentee landlords, with the words “let no man talk to me of other expedients” (he then lists those remedies only to refuse them). Explain the flaw in the narrator’s reasoning, and explain why Swift might have written it that way.
Answer and explanation
Model answer. The narrator presents his proposal as the only solution and refuses to consider the real remedies he names in the list that follows, which is a false dilemma that shuts out reasonable options. Swift probably wrote it that way on purpose: by making the narrator’s reasoning obviously closed and cruel, he invites readers to see that the real policies of the day also treated the poor as a resource and refused to consider genuine reforms. The flaw therefore carries the satire.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (5 points)
| Points | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Identifies the false dilemma or refusal to consider alternatives. |
| 1 | Explains why this is a flaw. |
| 1 | Recognises that the flaw is deliberate. |
| 1 | Explains the satirical purpose. |
| 1 | Refers to the real remedies named in the text. |
How did you do?
Count the multiple-choice questions you got right and compare your written answers with the rubric points. For anything you missed, reread the matching section of the study guide, then tick off the topic checklist.