Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumParallel Flaw

Whenever the ocean temperature in a region remains above 30 degrees Celsius for an extended period, the local coral reefs undergo severe bleaching. Marine biologists have recently reported severe bleaching in the northern barrier reefs. Therefore, it is certain that the ocean temperature in the northern barrier region recently remained above 30 degrees Celsius for an extended period.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. The patient must be consuming an excessive amount of refined sugar. After all, the patient's medical chart indicates rapid fluctuations in blood glucose, and anyone who consumes an excessive amount of refined sugar experiences such rapid fluctuations.Answer
  2. B
    If industrial runoff is strictly regulated, marine ecosystems will flourish. The marine ecosystems in the southern bay are clearly not flourishing. Hence, industrial runoff in that area must not be strictly regulated.
  3. C
    Any artist who masters classical portraiture can easily transition to modern abstract painting. Since Julian has never formally mastered classical portraiture, he will surely struggle to transition to modern abstract painting.
  4. D
    Some prominent tech startups have achieved profitability within their first year by relying solely on viral marketing. Therefore, most new businesses should abandon traditional advertising and focus entirely on viral marketing campaigns.
  5. E
    Neighborhoods with a high concentration of community gardens consistently show lower rates of property crime. Clearly, cultivating plants and vegetables deters individuals from engaging in criminal activities.

Answer

The argument concluding that a patient must be consuming excessive sugar based on rapid blood glucose fluctuations is the correct answer.
The correct answer accurately mirrors the logical flaw in the stimulus: an illegal reversal of a conditional statement. The stimulus states 'If High Temp -> Bleaching', observes 'Bleaching', and falsely concludes 'High Temp'. The correct option states 'If High Sugar -> Fluctuations', observes 'Fluctuations', and falsely concludes 'High Sugar'. Furthermore, it successfully varies the order of the premises and conclusion to ensure a structural, rather than superficial, match.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus argument.
Premise 1: If extended temp > 30°C (Sufficient), then severe bleaching (Necessary). Premise 2: Severe bleaching occurred. Conclusion: Temp > 30°C occurred.
Identifying the precise components of the conditional statement is required to determine the exact nature of the flaw.
2
Identify the logical flaw committed in the stimulus.
The argument commits an illegal reversal (also known as confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition). It assumes that the presence of the necessary outcome guarantees the presence of the sufficient trigger.
A parallel flaw question requires matching the specific abstract error in reasoning, not just the general topic.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the identical structural flaw, ignoring topic similarities and sentence order.
The argument regarding refined sugar and blood glucose perfectly matches the structure: 'If Sugar (Sufficient), then Fluctuations (Necessary). Fluctuations occurred. Therefore, Sugar occurred.' The other choices exhibit valid reasoning, illegal negation, quantifier errors, or causal flaws.
The correct answer must replicate the abstract logical error exactly, regardless of the subject matter or the order in which the premises and conclusion are presented.

Key Concept

Parallel Flaw - Illegal Reversal
Rate this question

Topics

Parallel Flaw

More questions from this topic