Determining the flaw in the argument - LSAT Logical Reasoning
Card 0 of 312
Advertisement: Coma Cola is the best-tasting cola on the market and we conducted a test using over 1000 cola consumers to prove it. Each consumer was given two identical cups filled with a carbonated beverage from the same fountain. One cup was filled with Coma Cola and the other was filled with unadulterated soda water. Ninety-nine percent of the consumers preferred the Coma Cola. So, Coma Cola is the best tasting cola available.
The advertisement’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider whether
Advertisement: Coma Cola is the best-tasting cola on the market and we conducted a test using over 1000 cola consumers to prove it. Each consumer was given two identical cups filled with a carbonated beverage from the same fountain. One cup was filled with Coma Cola and the other was filled with unadulterated soda water. Ninety-nine percent of the consumers preferred the Coma Cola. So, Coma Cola is the best tasting cola available.
The advertisement’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider whether
Tap to see back →
The advertisement's claim, that Coma Cola is the best tasting cola, is based on 99% percent of cola consumers choosing it over soda water. The flaw in the experimental setup is that just because a consumer chooses Coma Cola over soda water, it does not mean that she will choose Coma Cola over any other cola, let alone over all other colas.
The correct answer recognizes that, in order to validly make such a claim, one would have to show a preference for Coma Cola over other colas, not over soda water (or even over other flavored soft drinks, as one of the incorrect answer choices indicates).
The advertisement's claim, that Coma Cola is the best tasting cola, is based on 99% percent of cola consumers choosing it over soda water. The flaw in the experimental setup is that just because a consumer chooses Coma Cola over soda water, it does not mean that she will choose Coma Cola over any other cola, let alone over all other colas.
The correct answer recognizes that, in order to validly make such a claim, one would have to show a preference for Coma Cola over other colas, not over soda water (or even over other flavored soft drinks, as one of the incorrect answer choices indicates).
Basketball scout: Over the last 25 years, every professional basketball player who was at least 6 feet 6 inches tall could dunk a basketball. Maurice will begin his professional basketball career this coming year and his amatuer team lists him as 6 feet 7 inches tall. Thus, Maurice definitely will be able to dunk.
The basketball scout’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?
Basketball scout: Over the last 25 years, every professional basketball player who was at least 6 feet 6 inches tall could dunk a basketball. Maurice will begin his professional basketball career this coming year and his amatuer team lists him as 6 feet 7 inches tall. Thus, Maurice definitely will be able to dunk.
The basketball scout’s argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following objections?
Tap to see back →
25 years of data is pretty good evidence that players standing at least 6 feet, 6 inches tall are likely to be able to dunk. However, the possibility always exists that Maurice is an outlier and can't dunk or that circumstances have changed and the last 25 years are not indicative of what will happen in the future (e.g., maybe basket heights have been raised by 2 feet, making it more difficult to dunk). Thus, certainty as to Maurice's dunking ability is not possible based on the evidence presented.
25 years of data is pretty good evidence that players standing at least 6 feet, 6 inches tall are likely to be able to dunk. However, the possibility always exists that Maurice is an outlier and can't dunk or that circumstances have changed and the last 25 years are not indicative of what will happen in the future (e.g., maybe basket heights have been raised by 2 feet, making it more difficult to dunk). Thus, certainty as to Maurice's dunking ability is not possible based on the evidence presented.
Jim: My friends say I am putting my life in danger by snowboarding recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently skiers have much lower accident rates than snowboarders. So, trading in my snowboard for a a pair of skis would lower my risk of having an accident.
Jim’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
Jim: My friends say I am putting my life in danger by snowboarding recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently skiers have much lower accident rates than snowboarders. So, trading in my snowboard for a a pair of skis would lower my risk of having an accident.
Jim’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
Tap to see back →
The fact the skiers have lower accident rates than snowboarders may not have any bearing on whether either activity is safer for Jim. That is, just because skiing is more correlated with safety than snowboarding does not mean that skiing is inherently safer than snowboarding; it is possible that skiers, as a group, tend to act less recklessly than snowboarders making the activity appear safer. In such a scenario, if Jim continues his reckless ways as a skier, he may be no better off than if he had continued to snowboard.
The fact the skiers have lower accident rates than snowboarders may not have any bearing on whether either activity is safer for Jim. That is, just because skiing is more correlated with safety than snowboarding does not mean that skiing is inherently safer than snowboarding; it is possible that skiers, as a group, tend to act less recklessly than snowboarders making the activity appear safer. In such a scenario, if Jim continues his reckless ways as a skier, he may be no better off than if he had continued to snowboard.
The statement "all blue birds are birds" is true. Thus, by analogy, the statement "all suspected terrorists are terrorists" is also true.
The reasoning in the argument above is flawed because it fails to recognize that
The statement "all blue birds are birds" is true. Thus, by analogy, the statement "all suspected terrorists are terrorists" is also true.
The reasoning in the argument above is flawed because it fails to recognize that
Tap to see back →
It’s true that all blue birds are certainly birds — blue birds are a subset of the larger set of all birds. But a suspected terrorist may not be a terrorist at all. Just because "blue" and "suspected" are both used as adjectives to modify nouns does not mean that they modify the nouns in the same way.
It’s true that all blue birds are certainly birds — blue birds are a subset of the larger set of all birds. But a suspected terrorist may not be a terrorist at all. Just because "blue" and "suspected" are both used as adjectives to modify nouns does not mean that they modify the nouns in the same way.
Modern medicine has taken a turn for the worse. Doctors prescribe treatments that can cause serious side effects. The ailments that doctors treat have existed for many years. Yet, the treatments prescribed are novel and dangerous. Treatment side effects cause not only things like itchy eyes or upset stomachs, but rather, depression, heart failure, and damaged immune systems. Natural remedies are preferable because they have been used widely for thousands of years. Also, most natural remedies carry comparatively low risk of serious side effects.
The argument is most clearly flawed for which of the following reasons?
Modern medicine has taken a turn for the worse. Doctors prescribe treatments that can cause serious side effects. The ailments that doctors treat have existed for many years. Yet, the treatments prescribed are novel and dangerous. Treatment side effects cause not only things like itchy eyes or upset stomachs, but rather, depression, heart failure, and damaged immune systems. Natural remedies are preferable because they have been used widely for thousands of years. Also, most natural remedies carry comparatively low risk of serious side effects.
The argument is most clearly flawed for which of the following reasons?
Tap to see back →
The argument asserts that natural remedies cause less severe side effects than modern medical treatments, but it also makes an independent argument that natural remedies have been around for a long time. Without additional information, there is no support for concluding that one thing is better than another because it has been used for a longer time.
The argument asserts that natural remedies cause less severe side effects than modern medical treatments, but it also makes an independent argument that natural remedies have been around for a long time. Without additional information, there is no support for concluding that one thing is better than another because it has been used for a longer time.
Computers have finally reached their maximum potential for processing information. For fifty years, computer processing capabilities have steadily improved each year. Although some years saw greater advancements than others, each year saw at least some progress. That pattern was broken last year when computer processing capabilities failed to improve at all.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
Computers have finally reached their maximum potential for processing information. For fifty years, computer processing capabilities have steadily improved each year. Although some years saw greater advancements than others, each year saw at least some progress. That pattern was broken last year when computer processing capabilities failed to improve at all.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
Tap to see back →
The argument's primary assertion is that information processing capabilities will not improve in the future (have reached maximum potential). It supports this by claiming that no advancements were made last year, but fails to address why that claim supports the conclusion. That there have been advancements in years past is not enough without an additional premise.
The argument's primary assertion is that information processing capabilities will not improve in the future (have reached maximum potential). It supports this by claiming that no advancements were made last year, but fails to address why that claim supports the conclusion. That there have been advancements in years past is not enough without an additional premise.
Groups that oppose action to reduce emission of gases that contribute to global warming have major incentives to deny the existence of global warming. Many of these groups are backed by wealthy individuals or corporations that have a lot to lose from a new regulatory regime governing greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it likely that these groups’ publications will contain inaccurate information or misrepresent scientific evidence about global warming.
This argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it:
Groups that oppose action to reduce emission of gases that contribute to global warming have major incentives to deny the existence of global warming. Many of these groups are backed by wealthy individuals or corporations that have a lot to lose from a new regulatory regime governing greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it likely that these groups’ publications will contain inaccurate information or misrepresent scientific evidence about global warming.
This argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it:
Tap to see back →
The argument criticizes the group making the argument not the argument itself. That is a classsic ad hominem argument that is flawed. The correct answer points this out.
The argument criticizes the group making the argument not the argument itself. That is a classsic ad hominem argument that is flawed. The correct answer points this out.
History Student: A widely held historical view of the Battle of Fort Sumter at the outbreak of the American Civil War is that President Lincoln deployed a strategy of reinforcement without direct military provocation to enable the Union to blame the outbreak of war on the Confederacy. One renowned historian has recently staked a controversial position that there is not enough evidence to justify this theory. Therefore, the widely held view of the outbreak of the Civil War is false.
The reasoning above is most vulnerable to the criticism that it:
History Student: A widely held historical view of the Battle of Fort Sumter at the outbreak of the American Civil War is that President Lincoln deployed a strategy of reinforcement without direct military provocation to enable the Union to blame the outbreak of war on the Confederacy. One renowned historian has recently staked a controversial position that there is not enough evidence to justify this theory. Therefore, the widely held view of the outbreak of the Civil War is false.
The reasoning above is most vulnerable to the criticism that it:
Tap to see back →
The stimulus does not provide evidence that the position of most historians is false just that there is not enough evidence to prove it true. Only the correct answer shows that critical flaw with the arguments construction.
The stimulus does not provide evidence that the position of most historians is false just that there is not enough evidence to prove it true. Only the correct answer shows that critical flaw with the arguments construction.
Several leading experts in the field of economics have predicted that the rate of growth in Yakistan will increase of the next few years. However, one Professor from the University of Kazubistan has conclusively proven that economic predictions tend to be unreliable. Therefore, we can conclude that Yakistan will experience negative growth for the next few years.
Which one of the following best explains in the flaw in the reasoning above?
Several leading experts in the field of economics have predicted that the rate of growth in Yakistan will increase of the next few years. However, one Professor from the University of Kazubistan has conclusively proven that economic predictions tend to be unreliable. Therefore, we can conclude that Yakistan will experience negative growth for the next few years.
Which one of the following best explains in the flaw in the reasoning above?
Tap to see back →
The major flaw in the reasoning of the passage is that the stimulus in no way proves that Yakistan will experience negative growth. Simply showing that a prediction of positive growth may be inaccurate does not prove the opposite statement. Only the correct answer shows this flaw. The other answers either are irrelevant or not an actual flaw in the stimulus.
The major flaw in the reasoning of the passage is that the stimulus in no way proves that Yakistan will experience negative growth. Simply showing that a prediction of positive growth may be inaccurate does not prove the opposite statement. Only the correct answer shows this flaw. The other answers either are irrelevant or not an actual flaw in the stimulus.
Russell: Not all high-carbohydrate diets are unhealthy. Several conclusive studies have shown that people on high-carbohydrate diets can obtain a full complement of healthy foods.
Steven: You are wrong to assert that high-carbohydrate diets cannot be unhealthy. Eating a lot of carbohydrates can prevent people from consuming nutritious vegetables and fruits. Also, people whose diets are heavy in carbohydrates tend to engage in risky behavior that reduce their standards of living.
Steven’s response to Russell is most vulnerable to the criticism that his reply
Russell: Not all high-carbohydrate diets are unhealthy. Several conclusive studies have shown that people on high-carbohydrate diets can obtain a full complement of healthy foods.
Steven: You are wrong to assert that high-carbohydrate diets cannot be unhealthy. Eating a lot of carbohydrates can prevent people from consuming nutritious vegetables and fruits. Also, people whose diets are heavy in carbohydrates tend to engage in risky behavior that reduce their standards of living.
Steven’s response to Russell is most vulnerable to the criticism that his reply
Tap to see back →
Steven’s response to Russell is non-responsive. Russell is only saying that it is possible to be healthy even if you have a high-carbohydrate diet. Steven only points out scenarios where one’s health is compromised by having a diet heavy in carbohydrates but does not prove that it is impossible to have a healthy diet that is heavy in carbohydrates. The correct answer points out this problem.
Steven’s response to Russell is non-responsive. Russell is only saying that it is possible to be healthy even if you have a high-carbohydrate diet. Steven only points out scenarios where one’s health is compromised by having a diet heavy in carbohydrates but does not prove that it is impossible to have a healthy diet that is heavy in carbohydrates. The correct answer points out this problem.
Meteorologist: The average temperature last winter was 30 degrees fahrenheit. That was the lowest average temperature for a winter in 20 years. The average temperature this winter will most likely be warmer than last winter's average temperature.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
Meteorologist: The average temperature last winter was 30 degrees fahrenheit. That was the lowest average temperature for a winter in 20 years. The average temperature this winter will most likely be warmer than last winter's average temperature.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
Tap to see back →
The meteorologist did not establish a relationship between past temperatures and future temperatures. As a result, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the information given. To remedy this flaw, the meteorologist would need to establish that past temperatures predict future temperatures.
The meteorologist did not establish a relationship between past temperatures and future temperatures. As a result, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the information given. To remedy this flaw, the meteorologist would need to establish that past temperatures predict future temperatures.
Mayor: Critics of the Healthy Eating Bill are delaying passage of this important law because they disagree with the more narrow definition of the term “unhealthy foods.” However, this legislation will place stricter limits on the type of foods that will be available to the public than our current laws. Therefore, by splitting hairs over semantics, these critics show their apathy to the public’s health.
The Mayor’s reply to the opponents of the Healthy Eating Bill is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
Mayor: Critics of the Healthy Eating Bill are delaying passage of this important law because they disagree with the more narrow definition of the term “unhealthy foods.” However, this legislation will place stricter limits on the type of foods that will be available to the public than our current laws. Therefore, by splitting hairs over semantics, these critics show their apathy to the public’s health.
The Mayor’s reply to the opponents of the Healthy Eating Bill is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
Tap to see back →
The Mayor’s statement that the critics are “splitting hairs over semantics” indicates that he does not believe that the definition of the term "unhealthy foods" makes a difference to the argument. However, this is only his opinion. In actuality, a more restrictive, narrow definition of the term “unhealthy foods” may make significant difference to the critics of the bill. For example, a definition that excludes foods reputedly considered harmful to the public such as one that includes high fructose corn syrup or trans fat would not have the same impact as one that does; thus, support or criticism for the bill could turn on the definition of “unhealthy foods.” Therefore, the correct choice is: “It fails to adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the term “unhealthy foods” determines the impact of the legislation.”
The Mayor’s statement that the critics are “splitting hairs over semantics” indicates that he does not believe that the definition of the term "unhealthy foods" makes a difference to the argument. However, this is only his opinion. In actuality, a more restrictive, narrow definition of the term “unhealthy foods” may make significant difference to the critics of the bill. For example, a definition that excludes foods reputedly considered harmful to the public such as one that includes high fructose corn syrup or trans fat would not have the same impact as one that does; thus, support or criticism for the bill could turn on the definition of “unhealthy foods.” Therefore, the correct choice is: “It fails to adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the term “unhealthy foods” determines the impact of the legislation.”
The two opposing armies, Army 1 and Army 2, are the same in regards to size. Since certain diseases that have recently afflicted Army 1 can be attributed to its crowded conditions in its encampment, such diseases must also afflict Army 2.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it:
The two opposing armies, Army 1 and Army 2, are the same in regards to size. Since certain diseases that have recently afflicted Army 1 can be attributed to its crowded conditions in its encampment, such diseases must also afflict Army 2.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it:
Tap to see back →
The author comes to the hasty conclusion that two armies that share the same size will share the same problem (here disease) associated with the density of their encampments. The author assumes that no other factor could influence the issue, which is not true; e.g. different sanitation procedures, more or better skilled medical personnel, etc. could also influence the incidence of disease. This failure to take into account other alternative explanations is the correct answer choice, “fails to take into account other factors that may have caused disease.”
The author comes to the hasty conclusion that two armies that share the same size will share the same problem (here disease) associated with the density of their encampments. The author assumes that no other factor could influence the issue, which is not true; e.g. different sanitation procedures, more or better skilled medical personnel, etc. could also influence the incidence of disease. This failure to take into account other alternative explanations is the correct answer choice, “fails to take into account other factors that may have caused disease.”
The new music genre, “Eastern Vibe” has elements of different music genres. It has influences from Electronica, Dub Step, Rock, and Pop in its composition. Since it has no element in its composition that is original, it follows that the composition of “Eastern Vibe” cannot be considered original.
Which one of the following is a reasoning error made in the argument?
The new music genre, “Eastern Vibe” has elements of different music genres. It has influences from Electronica, Dub Step, Rock, and Pop in its composition. Since it has no element in its composition that is original, it follows that the composition of “Eastern Vibe” cannot be considered original.
Which one of the following is a reasoning error made in the argument?
Tap to see back →
The author argues that the new musical genre copied elements of other genres and is therefore not original. This argument does not necessarily follow as there could be other elements of the genre that are original such as the use of new instruments and sounds or the amalgamation of different sounds to form a new coherent genre. Therefore, something can be true of a whole without it being true of its parts; thus the author makes the error described in the answer choice: “assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself.”
The author argues that the new musical genre copied elements of other genres and is therefore not original. This argument does not necessarily follow as there could be other elements of the genre that are original such as the use of new instruments and sounds or the amalgamation of different sounds to form a new coherent genre. Therefore, something can be true of a whole without it being true of its parts; thus the author makes the error described in the answer choice: “assuming that because something is true of each of the parts of a whole it is true of the whole itself.”
Students that drink green tea while studying have higher test scores than those that drink soda while studying. Tea manufacturers emphasize that students who reported drinking green tea while preparing for a test achieved consistently higher test scores than those students who reported drinking soda while preparing for the same test. If this claim is true, then if the students who drink soda switched to drinking green tea, their test scores will rise.
The reasoning in this argument is flawed because the argument
Students that drink green tea while studying have higher test scores than those that drink soda while studying. Tea manufacturers emphasize that students who reported drinking green tea while preparing for a test achieved consistently higher test scores than those students who reported drinking soda while preparing for the same test. If this claim is true, then if the students who drink soda switched to drinking green tea, their test scores will rise.
The reasoning in this argument is flawed because the argument
Tap to see back →
The author, here, makes the mistake of assuming that drinking green tea raises test scores or that conversely, drinking soda yields lower test scores. Therefore, the author ignores the possibility that there may be other characteristics besides drink preference that determines a test taker’s score. Thus, the correct choice is “ignores the possibility that students who drink green tea may have other characteristics besides their drink preference that yield to higher test scores than those students who prefer to drink soda.”
The author, here, makes the mistake of assuming that drinking green tea raises test scores or that conversely, drinking soda yields lower test scores. Therefore, the author ignores the possibility that there may be other characteristics besides drink preference that determines a test taker’s score. Thus, the correct choice is “ignores the possibility that students who drink green tea may have other characteristics besides their drink preference that yield to higher test scores than those students who prefer to drink soda.”
Many senators do not listen to their constituents, nor are they reactive to the preferences of the people in their state. These politicians might state that they are acting in accordance with the preferences of the people in their state, but they really are not listening to their constituents because without being reactive to the preferences of the people in their respective states, it is impossible to listen to their constituents. It is clear from this that senators who do not listen to their constituents will be incapable of being reactive to the preferences of people in their state.
The argument above is logically suspect because it:
Many senators do not listen to their constituents, nor are they reactive to the preferences of the people in their state. These politicians might state that they are acting in accordance with the preferences of the people in their state, but they really are not listening to their constituents because without being reactive to the preferences of the people in their respective states, it is impossible to listen to their constituents. It is clear from this that senators who do not listen to their constituents will be incapable of being reactive to the preferences of people in their state.
The argument above is logically suspect because it:
Tap to see back →
Circular reasoning assumes the conclusion and is when the evidence and conclusion are functionally identical. Here, this is the case, and both the evidence and the conclusion are rewrites of each other. Thus, the correct answer choice is, “draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion.”
Circular reasoning assumes the conclusion and is when the evidence and conclusion are functionally identical. Here, this is the case, and both the evidence and the conclusion are rewrites of each other. Thus, the correct answer choice is, “draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion.”
Doctor X: I disagree with Doctor Y’s proposed treatment plan for Mr. Jones. Doctor Y recommends that Mr. Jones undergo surgery because he is in substantial pain. However, Mr. Jones cannot afford to pay for the procedure or the cost of the hospital stay.
The reasoning in Doctor’s X’s argument is flawed because the argument:
Doctor X: I disagree with Doctor Y’s proposed treatment plan for Mr. Jones. Doctor Y recommends that Mr. Jones undergo surgery because he is in substantial pain. However, Mr. Jones cannot afford to pay for the procedure or the cost of the hospital stay.
The reasoning in Doctor’s X’s argument is flawed because the argument:
Tap to see back →
Doctor X only focuses on whether Mr. Jones can afford the procedure and does not discuss the medical merits of Doctor Y’s recommendation. Therefore, there is a scope shift. In other words, just because Mr. Jones cannot afford Doctor Y’s recommendation does not mean that his recommendation is suspect. This is reflected in the correct answer choice that states Doctor X’s flawed argument, “uses evidence concerning the economic feasibility of acting on a recommendation as a basis for questioning of the validity of the recommendation.”
Doctor X only focuses on whether Mr. Jones can afford the procedure and does not discuss the medical merits of Doctor Y’s recommendation. Therefore, there is a scope shift. In other words, just because Mr. Jones cannot afford Doctor Y’s recommendation does not mean that his recommendation is suspect. This is reflected in the correct answer choice that states Doctor X’s flawed argument, “uses evidence concerning the economic feasibility of acting on a recommendation as a basis for questioning of the validity of the recommendation.”
Art history books are always written using elaborate language. Economics books are always written using unsophisticated language. Amanda’s professor wrote a book about the economics of art history. Therefore, the book uses moderately elaborate language.
Which answer choice uses the same flawed reasoning that is used in this example?
Art history books are always written using elaborate language. Economics books are always written using unsophisticated language. Amanda’s professor wrote a book about the economics of art history. Therefore, the book uses moderately elaborate language.
Which answer choice uses the same flawed reasoning that is used in this example?
Tap to see back →
The flawed reasoning follows the pattern that if “A” always has quality “X” and if “B” always has the opposite of quality “X,” then something that is a mix of “A” and “B” will have a moderate amount of quality X.
In the example, “art history books” (=A) always has the quality of “using elaborate language” (=X) However, “economics books” (=B) do not. Therefore, a mix of art history books and economics books (A + B) would use a moderate amount of (X), elaborate language.
In the correct answer, this same reasoning is followed.
Chihuahuas = A
Corgis = B
High-strung personalities = X
The flawed reasoning follows the pattern that if “A” always has quality “X” and if “B” always has the opposite of quality “X,” then something that is a mix of “A” and “B” will have a moderate amount of quality X.
In the example, “art history books” (=A) always has the quality of “using elaborate language” (=X) However, “economics books” (=B) do not. Therefore, a mix of art history books and economics books (A + B) would use a moderate amount of (X), elaborate language.
In the correct answer, this same reasoning is followed.
Chihuahuas = A
Corgis = B
High-strung personalities = X
Cook: Often times when I cook, I find that I can become over-ambitious and prepare multiple dishes at once. As a result, I don’t always pay enough attention to everything that I am preparing and have a tendency to overcook some of my creations. I have heard about a new type of cookware that is designed to prevent overcooking, and am thinking of investing in it so that I can prepare better food.
The cook’s reasoning is flawed because he is:
Cook: Often times when I cook, I find that I can become over-ambitious and prepare multiple dishes at once. As a result, I don’t always pay enough attention to everything that I am preparing and have a tendency to overcook some of my creations. I have heard about a new type of cookware that is designed to prevent overcooking, and am thinking of investing in it so that I can prepare better food.
The cook’s reasoning is flawed because he is:
Tap to see back →
The cookware is correlated to reduced overcooking. However, the chef thinks that the cookware will cause his food to no longer be overcooked, when the cause of such overcooking appears to be his inability to focus on a single dish because of his excessive multitasking. Therefore, the chef mistakes the cookware that he is using as being the cause of his food being overcooked.
The correct answer identifies the cause/ correlation error that the chef has made.
The cookware is correlated to reduced overcooking. However, the chef thinks that the cookware will cause his food to no longer be overcooked, when the cause of such overcooking appears to be his inability to focus on a single dish because of his excessive multitasking. Therefore, the chef mistakes the cookware that he is using as being the cause of his food being overcooked.
The correct answer identifies the cause/ correlation error that the chef has made.
Patient: The doctor who diagnosed my broken leg and recommended I wear a cast for six months has only seen three prior patients with broken legs. Dr. Green, an orthopedic surgeon, has evaluated thousands of patients who had broken legs. Even though a consultation with Dr. Green is more expensive, he will likely give a more accurate diagnosis of my leg than I got from the prior doctor.
The reasoning in the patient's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
Patient: The doctor who diagnosed my broken leg and recommended I wear a cast for six months has only seen three prior patients with broken legs. Dr. Green, an orthopedic surgeon, has evaluated thousands of patients who had broken legs. Even though a consultation with Dr. Green is more expensive, he will likely give a more accurate diagnosis of my leg than I got from the prior doctor.
The reasoning in the patient's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
Tap to see back →
The patient’s fundamental assumption is that Dr. Green’s diagnosis will be more accurate simply because he has more experience in evaluating patients. Yet there is no logical reason to assume this. The other doctor’s diagnosis may be accurate regardless of how many patients he has evaluated.
The patient’s fundamental assumption is that Dr. Green’s diagnosis will be more accurate simply because he has more experience in evaluating patients. Yet there is no logical reason to assume this. The other doctor’s diagnosis may be accurate regardless of how many patients he has evaluated.