Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardComposition and Division (Part to Whole)

Economic Historian: The prolonged recession of the 1970s was characterized by severe instability within the national manufacturing sector. Yet, paradoxically, macroeconomic data from that era demonstrates that the national manufacturing sector, evaluated as a comprehensive whole, maintained an incredibly high rate of overall financial solvency. Therefore, it is historically inaccurate to suggest that any individual manufacturing corporation was operating on the brink of bankruptcy at that time.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the economic historian's reasoning?

  1. It takes for granted that a characteristic belonging to a comprehensive entity must also belong to each of its individual constituent parts.Answer
  2. B
    It relies on an ambiguous shift in the meaning of the term 'instability' between the premise and the conclusion.
  3. C
    It fails to consider that the macroeconomic data from the 1970s might have been systematically manipulated or incorrectly recorded.
  4. D
    It confuses an intermediate conclusion regarding the financial solvency of the sector with the main conclusion about the causes of the recession.
  5. E
    It draws a categorical conclusion about all manufacturing corporations based on evidence that is only sufficient to support a conclusion about most of those corporations.

Answer

The option stating that it takes for granted that a characteristic belonging to a comprehensive entity must also belong to each of its individual constituent parts.
The correct answer accurately identifies the fallacy of Division. The historian concludes that no individual corporation was near bankruptcy (a property of the parts) based solely on the fact that the manufacturing sector as a comprehensive whole was financially solvent (a property of the whole). This reasoning is fundamentally flawed because an entire sector could be highly solvent on an aggregate level if the immense wealth of a few massive corporations masks the severe insolvency of many smaller ones.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that 'it is historically inaccurate to suggest that any individual manufacturing corporation was operating on the brink of bankruptcy at that time.'
Identifying the conclusion clarifies the exact claim the author is attempting to prove.
2
Identify the primary premise used to support the conclusion.
The core premise is that the 'national manufacturing sector, evaluated as a comprehensive whole, maintained an incredibly high rate of overall financial solvency.'
Understanding the evidence is necessary to evaluate the logical relationship between the premise and conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical transition from the premise to the conclusion to pinpoint the reasoning error.
The historian takes a property of the collective group ('comprehensive whole' being highly solvent) and inappropriately applies it to every single member of that group ('any individual manufacturing corporation').
Recognizing the shift in scope from the macro-level whole to the micro-level parts reveals the Fallacy of Division.
4
Select the answer choice that perfectly matches this abstract logical flaw.
The correct choice translates this error into formal logic: assuming a characteristic of a 'comprehensive entity' must belong to its 'individual constituent parts.'
LSAT flaw questions require translating a specific contextual error into a generalized description of the fallacy.

Key Concept

Fallacy of Division (Part-to-Whole Reasoning)
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Rate this question

Topics

Composition and Division (Part to Whole)

More questions from this topic