Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Tech Entrepreneur: For a technology startup to achieve long-term financial stability, it is absolutely essential that it secures a major round of venture capital funding during its first year. Our chief competitor, Vertex Innovations, just announced that they secured a massive round of venture capital funding in their first year of operation. Consequently, it is certain that Vertex Innovations will achieve long-term financial stability.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the flaw in the tech entrepreneur's reasoning?

  1. A
    It relies on an ambiguous use of the phrase "venture capital funding" across different contexts.
  2. It treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were a condition that is sufficient to produce that outcome.Answer
  3. C
    It infers a causal relationship between two phenomena merely from the fact that they are frequently correlated.
  4. D
    It overlooks the possibility that a startup might fail to secure venture capital funding but still achieve long-term financial stability.
  5. E
    It assumes without justification that what holds true for one particular technology startup will hold true for all other startups in the industry.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were a condition that is sufficient to produce that outcome.
The argument's first sentence establishes that early venture capital funding is a necessary condition for long-term financial stability. However, the conclusion assumes that because Vertex Innovations achieved this necessary condition, long-term financial stability is "certain." This erroneously treats a requirement as a guarantee.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first sentence to identify the conditional relationship established by the premises.
The premise states: Financial Stability -> Venture Capital Funding (funding is necessary).
Understanding the exact logical conditions presented in the premises is crucial before evaluating the conclusion.
2
Analyze the remaining sentences to identify the application of the rule and the final conclusion.
The stimulus notes Vertex met the necessary condition (they got funding) and concludes Vertex will reach the sufficient condition (they will achieve stability).
Mapping the conclusion against the initial premises reveals the structural gap in the argument.
3
Identify the mismatch between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument commits an illegal reversal, assuming that because the necessary condition was met, the sufficient condition is guaranteed.
Matching the structural gap to standard logical fallacies provides the exact description of the reasoning flaw.

Key Concept

Identifying Conditional Logic Flaws (Illegal Reversal)
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic