Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumGeneral Method of Reasoning

Policy Analyst: The mayor argues that implementing a strict 10 PM curfew for teenagers will reduce overall crime rates in our city. However, when neighboring Springfield implemented an identical curfew three years ago, the overall crime rate actually rose. This occurred because police resources were diverted from patrolling historically high-crime neighborhoods in order to enforce the curfew violations.

The policy analyst responds to the mayor's proposal by identifying a logical contradiction internal to the mayor's argument.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False
The statement incorrectly describes the analyst's argumentative strategy. The analyst does not point out any contradictory premises or logical impossibilities inherent in the mayor's claim. Instead, the analyst uses an argument by analogy, drawing on the historical example of Springfield to introduce a causal mechanism (resource diversion) that defeats the mayor's policy goal.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the mayor's original argument.
The mayor claims that a teenager curfew will cause a reduction in the city's overall crime rates.
Understanding the core claim is necessary to evaluate how the analyst structures the counterargument.
2
Determine the analyst's method of reasoning.
The analyst cites a similar past situation (Springfield) where the policy failed due to a specific causal mechanism (diverting police resources).
Identifying the structural role of the evidence provided is the primary task in a method of reasoning question.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the identified method.
The statement claims the analyst finds a 'logical contradiction internal to the mayor's argument.' However, using an external analogy to show empirical failure is fundamentally different from pointing out internally contradictory premises.
Comparing the abstract description in the statement to the actual argumentative structure reveals that the characterization is inaccurate.

Key Concept

Distinguishing between challenging an argument using external empirical analogies and attacking its internal logical consistency.
Rate this question

Topics

General Method of Reasoning

More questions from this topic