Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEvaluating Reasoning Flaws

A regional logistics firm upgraded its ground delivery fleet management software to an automated, predictive routing system. During the six months following the upgrade, the firm recorded a 15 percent decrease in total fuel consumption across all ground routes. The chief operating officer concluded that the new software directly caused the improved fuel efficiency, and subsequently recommended implementing the exact same system across the company's container shipping vessel fleet to achieve an identical 15 percent fuel reduction. Which of the following statements describe logical vulnerabilities in the chief operating officer's reasoning? Select all that apply.

  1. The reasoning fails to account for alternative explanations, such as seasonal weather changes or fluctuations in cargo load weight, that could account for the observed reduction in fuel consumption.Answer
  2. The reasoning improperly assumes that fuel savings achieved in ground delivery operations will automatically translate in the same proportion to maritime container shipping.Answer
  3. C
    The reasoning relies on data collected exclusively from routes that were selectively chosen due to their low baseline fuel efficiency prior to the study.
  4. D
    The reasoning presumes that reducing operational fuel costs is the single most critical objective for the company's maritime container division.
  5. E
    The reasoning reinforces the conclusion by providing empirical proof that AI-driven routing software functions with equal efficacy across all transportation sectors.

Answer

The correct evaluations are the statement noting that the argument fails to account for alternative explanations such as weather or load shifts, and the statement highlighting the improper assumption that ground fleet results apply proportionally to maritime vessels.
The argument suffers from two distinct logical flaws. First, it assumes that because fuel reduction followed the software installation, the software must have caused the reduction, ignoring other potential factors like load weight or seasonal weather changes. Second, it assumes that performance metrics achieved in ground vehicle delivery can be extrapolated directly to maritime vessel shipping, which operates under entirely different mechanics and conditions. The two correct statements pinpoint these exact flaws.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises and conclusion of the stimulus argument.
Premise 1: Software upgraded in ground fleet. Premise 2: Fuel consumption dropped 15% over six months. Conclusion 1: Software caused the drop. Conclusion 2: Installing the same software in maritime shipping will yield an identical 15% drop.
Isolating the structure highlights two core leaps: inferring causation from temporal sequence, and extrapolating results across completely different operational domains.
2
Evaluate candidate vulnerabilities against the argument's logical leaps.
The statement regarding alternative explanations correctly highlights the correlation-causation error. The statement regarding ground versus maritime operations correctly highlights the flawed extrapolation error.
Both selected statements directly address logical gaps in how the evidence is used to reach the ultimate recommendation.
3
Eliminate incorrect distractors based on passage evidence and prompt direction.
The statement about route selection contradicts the passage's claim of all routes being included; the statement about primary objective shifts scope away from fuel efficiency; and the statement claiming to reinforce the conclusion reverses the directional goal of identifying flaws.
Distractors fall into scope errors, factual misreadings of the text, or directional reversals.

Key Concept

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws: Correlation vs Causation and Unwarranted Extrapolation
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws

More questions from this topic