Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardEquivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

Match each flawed argument with the abstract description of the equivocation (semantic shift) it commits.

  • The preservation society argues that the historic courthouse is a critical part of our city's heritage. However, engineers report that the building's support columns are in critical condition. Since anything in a critical state is fundamentally unstable, the building should be demolished.Exploits an ambiguity between a measure of historical importance and a description of physical instability.
  • Economists claim that consumer spending behavior during a recession is highly predictable. Yet, when asked exactly what a specific shopper would purchase at the grocery store today, the economists could not say. Thus, the economists' claim is false.Treats a term denoting aggregate statistical regularity as though it implies absolute foresight in individual instances.
  • The consulting firm recommends adopting an aggressive strategy to capture market share. However, our corporate philosophy mandates a respectful and harmonious work environment. Because we cannot condone hostility or belligerence, we must reject the firm's recommendation.Illicitly transitions from a strategic disposition toward proactive risk-taking to a socially hostile behavioral trait.
  • The principal insists that all faculty share responsibility for the school's academic reputation. Yet the math teacher was fired for being responsible for the historically low test scores. If everyone shares responsibility, it is unjust to single out the math teacher.Shifts the meaning of a term from a collective professional obligation to direct causal culpability.

Answer

Argument 1 pairs with the ambiguity between historical importance and physical instability. Argument 2 pairs with treating statistical regularity as individual foresight. Argument 3 pairs with the transition from proactive risk-taking to a hostile trait. Argument 4 pairs with the shift from collective obligation to direct causal culpability.
Each argument commits an equivocation by shifting the meaning of a key term between its premises and conclusion. The correct matches identify the exact semantic shift for the terms 'critical', 'predictable', 'aggressive', and 'responsibility' using the formal, abstract language typical of LSAT Logical Reasoning flaw descriptions.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first argument to isolate the repeated key term and evaluate its usage in different sentences.
The word 'critical' shifts from meaning 'very important' (heritage) to 'failing/dangerous' (condition).
Identifying the semantic shift allows mapping it to the abstract description regarding historical importance versus physical instability.
2
Examine the second argument for a mismatch between the premise's general claim and the conclusion's specific application.
The concept of 'predictable' shifts from a macro-level statistical trend to micro-level absolute certainty.
This confirms the match with the description of confusing aggregate statistical regularity with individual foresight.
3
Review the third argument's justification for rejecting the consulting firm's recommendation.
The term 'aggressive' is used first to describe a bold business strategy, but is then evaluated as 'hostility or belligerence' in a social context.
This matches the abstract description of transitioning from proactive risk-taking to a socially hostile behavioral trait.
4
Evaluate the fourth argument's application of the principal's rule to the math teacher's firing.
The word 'responsibility' is used to mean 'a shared duty' in the premise, but 'direct fault or blame' in the context of the teacher's firing.
This aligns perfectly with shifting from a collective professional obligation to direct causal culpability.

Key Concept

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)
Rate this question

Topics

Equivocation (Uncertain Use of a Term)

More questions from this topic