Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Read the argument and evaluate the statement that follows.

City Planner: Any city that successfully revitalizes its downtown commercial district must offer extensive public parking. The municipality of Riverbend recently constructed several large public parking facilities in its downtown area. Therefore, Riverbend's downtown commercial district will undoubtedly be successfully revitalized.

Statement: The city planner's argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it treats a condition that is necessary to bring about a particular outcome as a condition that is sufficient to guarantee that outcome.

Answer: Answer

Answer

The statement is true because it accurately describes the structural flaw in the planner's conditional reasoning.
The statement is true. The argument structurally establishes that extensive parking is required (necessary) for a downtown revitalization. It then concludes that because Riverbend met this requirement, the revitalization is guaranteed (sufficient). Treating a requirement as a guarantee is the classic necessary vs. sufficient logical flaw, which the statement describes perfectly.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conditional statement in the argument's first premise.
The premise states: 'Any city that successfully revitalizes... must offer extensive public parking.' This translates to: If Revitalized -> Then Extensive Parking.
Identifying the formal logic structure is the first step in diagnosing conditional reasoning flaws.
2
Identify the argument's secondary premise and conclusion.
Premise 2: Riverbend has extensive parking. Conclusion: Riverbend will be revitalized.
To find the flaw, we must see how the author moves from the premises to the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical transition for errors.
The argument observes the necessary condition (parking) being met, and infers that the sufficient condition (revitalization) must follow. This is an illegal reversal.
Recognizing the mismatch between what the premises support and what the conclusion claims exposes the specific vulnerability.
4
Compare the identified error to the provided statement.
The statement describes treating a necessary condition (parking) as a sufficient condition (a guarantee of revitalization). This matches the error found in Step 3.
This confirms whether the abstract description accurately targets the stimulus's flaw.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Confusion of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic