Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Agricultural Specialist: In order for any new grain cultivar to receive an official drought-hardy certification from the national agricultural board, the cultivar must maintain stable yields across three consecutive seasons of below-average precipitation. In recent field trials, the experimental grain cultivar 'ValoBarley' successfully maintained stable crop yields throughout three consecutive seasons of severe drought. Thus, ValoBarley will definitely be granted the official drought-hardy certification.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the agricultural specialist's reasoning?

  1. A
    infers that all experimental grain cultivars will perform similarly under severe drought conditions based on the results of a single cultivar's trial
  2. B
    takes for granted that the precipitation levels during the field trials were measured with absolute precision
  3. treats a requirement that is necessary for receiving the certification as if it were sufficient to guarantee that the certification is awardedAnswer
  4. D
    assumes that any cultivar failing to meet yield stability standards cannot possess any other desirable agronomic traits
  5. E
    treats the finding that ValoBarley maintained stable yields as the main conclusion of the argument rather than as supporting evidence

Answer

The argument treats a condition that is necessary for certification as if it were sufficient to guarantee certification.
The rule explicitly uses the indicator 'In order for... must...', which establishes that maintaining yield stability during three drought seasons is a necessary condition for obtaining the certification. Demonstrating that ValoBarley met this condition only shows that one requirement has been satisfied; it does not guarantee that certification is assured, as other mandatory requirements may exist. The argument erroneously treats this necessary prerequisite as a sufficient condition.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Isolate the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Certification requires stable yields across three consecutive drought seasons (Certification → 3 seasons stable yields). Premise 2: ValoBarley met the 3-season stable yield requirement. Conclusion: ValoBarley will definitely receive certification.
Clarifying the argumentative structure helps reveal whether the logic validly connects the evidence to the claim.
2
Analyze the conditional logic connecting the rule to the conclusion.
The rule states that 3 seasons of stable yields is a necessary condition ('must maintain'). The author reasons from the satisfaction of this necessary condition to the guarantee of the outcome.
Meeting a prerequisite does not guarantee the outcome, because there may be other mandatory criteria (e.g., grain quality, pest resistance, regulatory filing).
3
Select the option that accurately describes this conditional error.
The statement describing the confusion of a necessary requirement with a sufficient guarantee directly matches the flaw.
This accurately reflects the classic formal logic fallacy committed in the stimulus.

Key Concept

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Confusion
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic