Question

Difficulty: Very hardFlaw in the Reasoning

Criminologist: The city council insists its new zero-tolerance policing strategy is succeeding, citing a 15 percent reduction in overall violent crime over the six months since the strategy was launched. This evidence, however, is meaningless. Over those same six months, a regional economic collapse caused the city's total population to plummet by roughly 20 percent as residents relocated. Consequently, the zero-tolerance strategy has had absolutely no effect on the incidence of violent crime.

The criminologist's argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it illicitly infers a causal relationship between the policing strategy and the reduction in crime based solely on a chronological correlation.

Answer: Answer

Answer

The statement is False.
The statement is false because it misattributes the logical flaw. It describes a correlation-to-causation fallacy, which is the error made by the city council. The criminologist's actual error is concluding that the policy had no effect whatsoever merely because the council's evidence for success was flawed (an 'absence of evidence' fallacy).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the stimulus into the opponent's claim, the author's premise, and the author's conclusion.
Opponent (city council): The policing strategy caused the 15% crime drop. Author's premise: The population dropped by 20% simultaneously due to an economic collapse. Author's conclusion: The policing strategy had absolutely no effect.
Identifying the structural components is strictly required to determine exactly whose reasoning is being evaluated.
2
Analyze the logical vulnerability specifically in the author's (criminologist's) inference.
The criminologist jumps from 'the city council's evidence is meaningless' to 'the policy had absolutely no effect.' This is a classic absence-of-evidence fallacy.
A valid flaw description must accurately target the structural error in the author's argument, not the opponent's.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the criminologist's actual reasoning.
The statement accuses the criminologist of inferring a causal relationship from a chronological correlation. However, the criminologist does the exact opposite by attempting to dismantle a causal claim.
Because the statement attributes the opponent's logical fallacy to the author, it is a false evaluation of the author's argument.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Separating the Author's Flaw from the Opponent's Flaw
Rate this question