Below are four independent arguments that each contain a distinct reasoning error involving conditional relationships. Identify the precise nature of the error in each argument by pairing it with its corresponding abstract logical description.
- If the municipal government decreases property taxes, local consumer spending will increase. The municipal government has announced it is not decreasing property taxes this year, so local consumer spending will definitely not increase.Infers that because a specific action is sufficient to bring about a consequence, the decision to forgo that action guarantees the consequence will not occur.
- A candidate will be offered the executive position only if they pass a rigorous background check. Sarah passed the rigorous background check, therefore she will certainly be offered the executive position.Concludes that a condition required for a specific outcome is, by itself, enough to ensure that outcome.
- All successful tech entrepreneurs take calculated financial risks. Therefore, if Marcus takes calculated financial risks with his startup, he will undoubtedly become a successful tech entrepreneur.Takes a characteristic shared by all members of a specific group to be a characteristic that guarantees membership in that group.
- Unless the defending champions drastically improve their defensive strategy, they will lose the upcoming tournament. The team has drastically improved its defensive strategy, so they are guaranteed not to lose the tournament.Infers that because the failure to meet a certain requirement ensures a negative outcome, meeting that requirement will prevent the negative outcome.
Answer
The municipal tax argument pairs with the 'forgo that action' description; the executive candidate argument pairs with the 'condition required' description; the tech entrepreneur argument pairs with the 'characteristic shared' description; and the sports team argument pairs with the 'failure to meet a requirement' description.
Each pair correctly matches a specific argument structure to its precise abstract logical flaw description. The tax argument illegally negates an 'if' action; the candidate argument treats an 'only if' requirement as a guarantee; the entrepreneur argument confuses a necessary group characteristic with a sufficient condition; and the team argument incorrectly assumes fulfilling an 'unless' requirement prevents a default outcome.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Identifying structural variations of Illegal Reversal and Illegal Negation conditional reasoning flaws.