Consider the four argumentative excerpts below, each of which contains a distinct reasoning error. Match each flawed argument with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its central vulnerability.
- City Planner: Any municipality that successfully revitalizes its downtown commercial core must first establish dedicated pedestrian-only corridors. Because Millfield recently completed the conversion of its main retail avenue into a pedestrian corridor, we can be certain that downtown Millfield will achieve full economic revitalization.Treats a condition that is necessary for achieving a particular outcome as though it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
- Cognitive Scientist: The sudden surge in worker productivity following the laboratory redesign must be attributable either to the upgraded full-spectrum lighting or to the installation of ergonomic standing desks. Because environmental monitors confirmed that the lighting intensity remained unchanged, the ergonomic desks alone must have generated the productivity gain.Assumes without adequate justification that only two potential explanations exist for an observed phenomenon.
- Materials Engineer: Every composite polymer bracket utilized in the prototype airframe possesses exceptional thermal resistance and remains structurally sound at temperatures exceeding 800 degrees Celsius. Therefore, the assembled prototype airframe as an entire unit will inevitably withstand operational temperatures above 800 degrees Celsius.Infers that an entire composite entity must possess a specific attribute merely because each of its individual constituent parts possesses that attribute.
- Sociologist: A comprehensive longitudinal survey established that adults who regularly participate in competitive amateur team sports report significantly lower rates of chronic insomnia than adults who do not. Clearly, participating in competitive team athletics actively prevents sleep disturbances in adults.Concludes that a causal connection exists between two correlated phenomena without ruling out alternative causal explanations.
Answer
The correct matches pair the City Planner with confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one, the Cognitive Scientist with assuming only two explanations exist, the Materials Engineer with inferring a property of the whole from its parts, and the Sociologist with inferring causation from correlation.
Each argument maps directly to an established structural flaw in informal and formal logic: the City Planner confuses a necessary condition for a sufficient one; the Cognitive Scientist commits a false dilemma by assuming an exhaustive binary choice; the Materials Engineer commits a composition flaw moving from individual parts to the whole entity; and the Sociologist infers causation directly from correlation without ruling out alternative explanations.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Identifying recurring logical fallacies: necessary versus sufficient confusion, false dilemma, fallacy of composition, and correlation versus causation.