Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardFlaw in the Reasoning

Corporate Strategist: For a technology company to remain competitive in today's global market, it is absolutely essential that it continually invests in research and development. Without such investment, a company's product line will quickly become obsolete. TechGiant Inc. has recently allocated a larger percentage of its annual budget to research and development than any of its leading competitors.

Which of the following best describes the logical flaw in the corporate strategist's argument?

  1. A
    The argument fails to consider that allocating a larger percentage of a budget does not necessarily equate to a larger absolute amount of funding.
  2. B
    The argument confuses a mere correlation between financial investment and market success with a direct causal relationship.
  3. The argument treats a condition that is required for achieving a specific outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.Answer
  4. D
    The argument takes for granted that if a company's product line becomes obsolete, that company must have failed to invest in research and development.
  5. E
    The argument relies on an illicit shift in the meaning of the phrase "competitive edge" over the course of the reasoning.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument treats a condition that is required for achieving a specific outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The argument explicitly establishes that investing in research and development is 'absolutely essential' (a necessary condition) for remaining competitive. It then demonstrates that TechGiant is investing, and concludes that TechGiant is 'guaranteed' to remain competitive. This is a classic formal logic flaw: the argument assumes that satisfying a necessary requirement is sufficient to ensure the final outcome.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises to identify the established logical relationships.
The premises explicitly state that continually investing in research and development is 'absolutely essential' (a necessary condition) for a company to remain competitive.
Understanding the exact conditional nature of the evidence is required to evaluate the validity of the argument's structure.
2
Examine the evidence provided about the specific subject.
The argument provides evidence that TechGiant has allocated a large percentage of its budget to research and development, meaning it has successfully met the necessary condition established in the premises.
We must determine how the specific evidence relates to the general rules governing the argument.
3
Evaluate the argument's final conclusion against the premises and evidence.
The conclusion states that TechGiant is 'guaranteed' to maintain its competitive edge. This assumes that merely meeting the necessary condition of investing in research and development is sufficient to guarantee overarching success.
Comparing the logical weight of the conclusion against the support offered reveals the core structural flaw: confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one.

Key Concept

Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic