Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyParallel Flaw

Pair each of the following flawed arguments with the argument that exhibits an identical pattern of faulty reasoning.

  • If a city has a subway system, it experiences less traffic congestion. Springfield is currently experiencing less traffic congestion. Therefore, Springfield must have built a subway system.If a recipe contains baking powder, the cake will rise. This cake has risen beautifully. Therefore, the recipe must contain baking powder.
  • Every individual puzzle piece in this box is shaped like a square. Consequently, when the puzzle is completely assembled, the final image will be shaped like a square.Each brick used to construct this building weighs less than five pounds. As a result, the completed building itself must weigh less than five pounds.
  • Studies show that employees who take frequent walks report higher job satisfaction. Therefore, taking frequent walks directly increases an employee's job satisfaction.Neighborhoods with more streetlights have lower crime rates. Thus, installing more streetlights causes a reduction in criminal activity.

Answer

The city subway argument matches the baking powder argument (Illegal Reversal). The puzzle piece argument matches the brick building argument (Part-to-Whole). The employee walks argument matches the streetlight argument (Correlation vs. Causation).
Each pair correctly links a stimulus argument with a target argument that shares the exact same logical vulnerability: illegal reversal, part-to-whole composition, and confusing correlation with causation, respectively.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first argument about the city subway system.
Identify the flaw as an illegal reversal: 'If A (subway) then B (less traffic). B (less traffic) is true, so A (subway) must be true.'
Understanding the abstract structure of the error is required to find its match.
2
Find the matching flaw among the available options.
The baking powder argument uses the exact same structure: 'If A (baking powder) then B (cake rises). B (cake rises) is true, so A (baking powder) must be true.'
This establishes the first parallel flaw pair.
3
Analyze the second argument about the puzzle pieces.
Identify the flaw as a part-to-whole error (composition): assuming the whole has a property just because its constituent parts do.
Extracting the logical error allows for structural comparison.
4
Find the corresponding part-to-whole error.
The brick building argument assumes the whole building is light because individual bricks are light, directly matching the puzzle argument.
This establishes the second parallel flaw pair.
5
Analyze the third argument about employee walks.
Identify the flaw as confusing correlation with causation: assuming walks cause satisfaction simply because the two are linked.
Identifying the causal assumption isolates the final abstract flaw type.
6
Match the final argument.
The streetlight argument assumes streetlights cause lower crime just because they are correlated, which perfectly matches the employee walks argument.
This confirms and completes all parallel flaw pairings.

Key Concept

Parallel Flaw
Rate this question

Topics

Parallel Flaw

More questions from this topic