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 that 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 this
kind of violence. (5) if we let children watch 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 often staged specifically to boost attendance, with no evidence provided, creating a logical flaw.
3. Sentence 6: It makes an unsubstantiated sweeping generalization that all athletes don't care about the example they set for children, which is a logical fallacy and lacks clarity.

Answer:

• sentence 3
• sentence 4
• sentence 6