Below are four distinct arguments, each containing a fundamental error in its reasoning. Pair each argument on the left with the precise description of its structural vulnerability on the right.
- Whenever an appellate court systematically defers to regulatory agencies, the consistency of administrative law is compromised. Our jurisdiction has recently suffered a severe compromise in the consistency of its administrative law. Thus, our appellate court has clearly adopted a stance of systematic deference.Treats a condition that is sufficient to bring about a state of affairs as though it were required to bring about that state of affairs.
- The critic praises the new biography as a 'literal' masterpiece because it translates the poet's obscure foreign correspondence word-for-word. Yet, the biography's narrative is highly speculative and subjective. Consequently, describing the work as a literal masterpiece is fundamentally incorrect.Allows the meaning of a crucial expression to shift illicitly between the evidence provided and the conclusion drawn.
- The newly engineered composite material is constructed from metallic alloys that are, individually, completely impervious to oxidative corrosion. Since every individual alloy used in the manufacturing process possesses this resistance, the resulting composite material will be entirely immune to oxidative corrosion.Takes for granted that a complex whole must share a characteristic possessed by each of its constituent parts.
- A morally legitimate government will always prioritize the welfare of its most vulnerable populations above aggregate economic growth. The truth of this principle is evident, since any state apparatus that elevates aggregate economic growth over the welfare of its most vulnerable citizens lacks fundamental moral legitimacy.Advances a conclusion that is logically equivalent to the premise offered in its support.
Answer
The appellate court argument matches the necessary/sufficient confusion. The biography argument matches the equivocation flaw. The composite material argument matches the composition flaw. The government argument matches circular reasoning.
Each argument exhibits a textbook structural vulnerability that corresponds to one of the abstract descriptions. The appellate court argument exhibits a necessary/sufficient condition confusion (affirming the consequent). The biography argument shifts the meaning of a key term. The composite material argument infers a property of a whole from its parts. The government argument uses a premise logically identical to its conclusion.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Logical Flaw Identification and Abstraction