Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEvaluating Reasoning Flaws

A regional agricultural board observed that farms implementing drip irrigation systems recorded a 25 percent increase in crop yield per acre over a three-year period compared to farms using traditional flood irrigation. Based on this observation, the board concluded that adopting drip irrigation directly causes higher crop yields, and it recommended that all farms in the region switch to drip irrigation to maximize total harvest. Which of the following describe valid logical flaws or vulnerabilities in the board's reasoning? Select all that apply.

  1. It infers a direct causal relationship from a observed correlation without ruling out alternative factors, such as differences in soil quality or fertilizer use between the two groups of farms.Answer
  2. B
    It assumes without justification that farmers using flood irrigation have the financial resources required to install drip irrigation hardware immediately.
  3. It takes for granted that the yield increase observed under specific weather conditions over the three-year period will reliably generalize across different soil types and microclimates throughout the entire region.Answer
  4. D
    It fails to consider that flood irrigation might reduce overall water consumption in areas with deep, replenishable groundwater aquifers.
  5. E
    It overlooks empirical research showing that drip irrigation significantly reduces soil erosion compared to conventional flooding techniques.

Answer

The argument is logically vulnerable because it improperly infers causation from a correlation while ignoring confounding variables, and it improperly extrapolates results from a specific sample to the entire region.
The correct selections identify two distinct logical vulnerabilities in the argument: first, confusing correlation with causation by ignoring potential confounding variables (such as fertilizer use or soil quality differences between farm groups), and second, making an unwarranted extrapolation by assuming three-year results from a limited sample will hold across all regional soil types and weather conditions.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Farms using drip irrigation saw a 25 percent yield increase over three years compared to flood-irrigated farms. Conclusion: Drip irrigation causes higher yields, so all regional farms should adopt it.
Identifying the structural gap between the evidence and the conclusion is essential for evaluating reasoning flaws.
2
Evaluate potential logical vulnerabilities.
The argument assumes drip irrigation alone caused the yield increase (ignoring confounding variables) and assumes the three-year sample results apply universally across all farms and microclimates.
Two major logical errors are present: confusing correlation with causation and unwarranted extrapolation.
3
Match identified vulnerabilities with the provided options.
The statement highlighting alternative explanations (such as fertilizer or soil quality) and the statement highlighting unwarranted regional generalization represent valid flaws.
These statements directly address the gaps between the board's evidence and its conclusion.

Key Concept

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws

More questions from this topic