Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFalse Dilemma (False Dichotomy)

Infrastructure Commissioner: Our region's highway system is currently overwhelmed by the sheer volume of daily commuter traffic. To prevent a complete gridlock that would paralyze the local economy, we must immediately implement a strict congestion pricing system for all vehicles entering the metropolitan area. Therefore, since allowing our economy to be paralyzed is not an acceptable outcome, we have no choice but to enact the congestion pricing system.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the infrastructure commissioner's reasoning?

  1. A
    confuses a condition that would be sufficient to prevent a negative outcome with a condition that is logically required to prevent that outcome
  2. B
    takes for granted that because economic paralysis follows complete gridlock, the gridlock must be the primary cause of that paralysis
  3. fails to consider the possibility that measures other than congestion pricing could effectively resolve the region's highway traffic issuesAnswer
  4. D
    illicitly relies on two different senses of the word 'paralyze' to draw its conclusion about the economy
  5. E
    evaluates the proposed policy based on an assumption about its successful implementation in other jurisdictions

Answer

The correct answer identifies that the argument ignores alternative solutions, failing to consider that measures other than congestion pricing could resolve the traffic issues.
The author presents a binary choice: either implement congestion pricing, or suffer economic paralysis due to complete traffic gridlock. This reasoning is flawed because it assumes, without justification, that no other interventions—such as expanding public transportation, building new roads, or incentivizing remote work—could effectively prevent the gridlock. By ignoring these middle-ground or alternative possibilities, the argument commits a False Dilemma fallacy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The conclusion is that the city has no choice but to enact the congestion pricing system.
Understanding the final claim is necessary to evaluate the logic used to reach it.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
Premise 1: Congestion pricing must be implemented to prevent complete gridlock. Premise 2: Complete gridlock would paralyze the economy, which is unacceptable.
Evaluating the reasoning requires mapping how the premises are supposed to guarantee the conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes that congestion pricing is the singular possible way to prevent traffic gridlock, ruling out any other alternatives.
Identifying unstated assumptions reveals vulnerabilities or flaws in the argument's structure.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this logical gap.
The correct option points out the failure to consider other measures to resolve the traffic issue.
The question asks for the flaw, which in this case is a false dilemma (ignoring alternative solutions to a problem).

Key Concept

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)

More questions from this topic