Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumComposition and Division (Part to Whole)

Architect: Each of the individual structural components used in the construction of the new Solaria observation wheel is exceptionally lightweight, having been manufactured from a novel aerospace-grade composite. Therefore, the completed Solaria observation wheel itself must be exceptionally lightweight.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a logical flaw in the architect's argument?

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that a property belonging to each part of a whole must also belong to the whole itselfAnswer
  2. B
    trades on an ambiguity in the term 'lightweight', using it to mean one thing in the premise and a fundamentally different thing in the conclusion
  3. C
    infers that because a property belongs to some of the structural components, it must belong to all of the structural components
  4. D
    incorrectly equates a relative decrease in the weight of the components with an absolute decrease in the total mass of the completed structure
  5. E
    treats the claim about the novel aerospace-grade composite as the main conclusion of the argument rather than as a premise supporting that conclusion

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument presumes a property belonging to each part of a whole must also belong to the whole itself.
The argument exhibits a classic composition flaw. It observes a characteristic of the individual constituent parts (that each structural component is exceptionally lightweight) and improperly assumes that the entire, massive entity composed of those parts (the completed observation wheel) will share that exact same characteristic. Even if a single beam is very light for its size, tens of thousands of them bolted together will result in an immensely heavy structure.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the completed Solaria observation wheel itself must be exceptionally lightweight.
Separating the conclusion from the premises is always the first step in evaluating the logical structure of an argument.
2
Identify the premise provided in support of the conclusion.
The premise is that each individual structural component used to build the wheel is exceptionally lightweight.
Understanding the precise evidence provided is necessary to evaluate the logical leap made to reach the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premise and the conclusion to isolate the flaw.
The argument assumes that assembling many lightweight components will result in an overall lightweight structure. However, thousands of lightweight parts combined will likely create a very heavy final structure.
This analysis reveals the core logical error, which is the fallacy of composition (inappropriately inferring that what is true of the parts is true of the whole).

Key Concept

Composition Flaw (Part to Whole)
Rate this question

Topics

Composition and Division (Part to Whole)

More questions from this topic