Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Software Architect: Any digital application that successfully maintains user trust must incorporate transparent data privacy policies. Our upcoming fitness tracking application features completely transparent data privacy policies that detail exactly how all biometric information is stored and processed. Therefore, we can be confident that our new fitness tracking application will successfully maintain user trust.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the software architect's reasoning?

  1. A
    Concludes that a causal connection exists between data transparency and user trust based solely on a correlation.
  2. B
    Takes for granted that any application failing to maintain user trust will inevitably lack transparent data privacy policies.
  3. Mistakenly assumes that satisfying a prerequisite for a specific goal is enough to achieve that goal.Answer
  4. D
    Mistakes a subsidiary conclusion about the fitness tracking application for the primary conclusion of the argument.
  5. E
    Fails to recognize that the term 'transparent' is used in two distinctly different senses within the argument.

Answer

Mistakenly assumes that satisfying a prerequisite for a specific goal is enough to achieve that goal.
The argument establishes that a transparent data privacy policy is a necessary requirement (a prerequisite) for maintaining user trust. However, it then concludes that simply having this policy will guarantee user trust. This is logically flawed because there could be many other necessary conditions for maintaining trust (such as application stability or the absence of bugs), meaning that transparency alone is not sufficient.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premise 1: Maintaining user trust requires transparent data privacy policies. Premise 2: The new fitness application has transparent data privacy policies. Conclusion: The new fitness application will maintain user trust.
Deconstructing the argument into its structural components is necessary to evaluate the logical flow.
2
Analyze the logical relationship established in the first premise.
The phrase 'must incorporate' indicates a necessary condition. Thus, transparent policies are a prerequisite for user trust, but not necessarily sufficient to guarantee it on their own.
Identifying conditional indicators (like 'must') is crucial for spotting formal logic flaws.
3
Evaluate how the conclusion is drawn from the premises.
The architect sees that the application meets the necessary condition (it has transparent policies) and automatically assumes the ultimate result (user trust) will inevitably follow.
Comparing the evidence to the conclusion reveals whether the logical leap is justified.
4
Identify the abstract logical flaw.
The argument treats a condition that is required for an outcome as if it were enough to guarantee that outcome. This matches the option describing the assumption that satisfying a prerequisite is enough to achieve a goal.
The correct answer to a Flaw question must accurately and abstractly describe the specific error committed in the stimulus.

Key Concept

Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic