You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The UCAT Decision Making subtest regularly includes weak arguments as distractor options in "strongest argument" questions. Recognising common weak argument types allows you to eliminate incorrect options quickly and focus on genuinely strong arguments. This lesson catalogues the most frequent types of weak arguments you will encounter.
An emotional appeal tries to persuade through feelings rather than evidence.
Example: "Hospitals should provide single rooms for all patients because sharing a room is distressing."
Why it is weak: "Distressing" is a subjective emotional response. The argument does not provide evidence about health outcomes, recovery rates, or any measurable benefit of single rooms. A stronger version would cite evidence: "Single rooms reduce hospital-acquired infections by 20%."
Look for emotive language: "unfair," "cruel," "distressing," "heartbreaking," "deserves," "outrageous." These signal an appeal to emotion rather than evidence.
An ad hominem argument attacks the person making a claim rather than the claim itself.
Example: "The proposed NHS reform should be rejected because the minister proposing it has no medical background."
Why it is weak: The minister's background does not determine whether the reform itself is good or bad. A reform proposed by a non-medic could be excellent if based on good evidence and expert consultation. A reform proposed by a doctor could be terrible.
Look for arguments that focus on who is making the claim rather than what the claim actually says.
Citing an authority figure without providing their evidence or reasoning.
Example: "We should adopt this treatment protocol because Professor Smith recommends it."
Why it is weak: Professor Smith's recommendation is only as good as the evidence behind it. Without knowing the evidence, this argument is essentially "trust this person" rather than "here is the evidence."
A stronger version: "Professor Smith's systematic review of 15 trials found that this protocol reduces complications by 25%." — now the evidence speaks for itself.
Expert opinion is relevant when it is backed by evidence and the expert's domain matches the claim. But in the UCAT, the strongest argument will always be the one with the most direct evidence, not the most prestigious advocate.
A false analogy draws a comparison between two things that are not sufficiently similar.
Example: "Private companies have improved efficiency by cutting staff, so hospitals should cut staff to improve efficiency."
Why it is weak: Hospitals and private companies operate under fundamentally different constraints. Staff cuts in a hospital could compromise patient safety — a factor that does not apply in the same way to a private company selling products.
Look for arguments that say "X worked in context A, so it will work in context B." Ask: are contexts A and B sufficiently similar? If important differences exist, the analogy is false.
The conclusion is simply restated as a premise, rather than being supported by independent evidence.
Example: "Homeopathy works because it is an effective treatment."
Why it is weak: "It works" and "it is effective" say the same thing. No independent evidence or reasoning is provided. The argument assumes what it is trying to prove.
If the "reason" given is just a rephrasing of the conclusion, the argument is circular.
Arguing that something is correct because many people believe it or do it.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.