Question

read the passage.
(1) fights have been a part of hockey for decades, but should they continue to characterize the sport?
(2) for my part, i believe that fighting should not be allowed in hockey, because fighting leads to injuries for the players, such as pulled muscles and concussions. (4) hockey fights are often staged to encourage people to attend the events, and then they set a poor example for fans watching, particularly children, they will think it is acceptable to act that way at school. (5) if we let children watch this kind of violence, they will think it is acceptable to act that way at school, (6) these athletes know that children look up to them, and they do not worry about the message their careless fights are teaching.
which sentences should be removed or revised to eliminate logical fallacies and improve clarity? select three options.
□ sentence 2
□ sentence 3
□ sentence 4
□ sentence 5
□ sentence 6

Explanation:

1. Sentence 3: It uses a hasty generalization by claiming all hockey fights lead to injuries like pulled muscles and concussions, which is an overstatement that reduces clarity.
2. Sentence 4: It contains a false cause fallacy, assuming fights are staged specifically to draw crowds, with no evidence provided, creating a logical flaw.
3. Sentence 6: It makes an unsubstantiated sweeping generalization that all athletes in hockey do not care about the example they set for children, which is a logical fallacy and lacks clarity.

Answer:

• sentence 3
• sentence 4
• sentence 6