Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Ecologist: Restoring native wetlands along river basins is essential for stabilizing regional bird populations, as these wetlands provide the indispensable nesting habitats and insect forage that native migratory species require. Therefore, because the regional government has recently completed a comprehensive restoration of all historical river basin wetlands in the province, we can be certain that regional bird populations will stabilize over the next decade.

The reasoning in the ecologist's argument is flawed because the argument

  1. A
    bases its conclusion on an appeal to the authority of a regional government rather than on ecological evidence
  2. B
    disputes the claim that migratory bird species require insect forage for their survival
  3. treats a condition that is necessary for stabilizing bird populations as though it were sufficient to ensure that outcomeAnswer
  4. D
    confuses a supporting claim about historical wetland distribution with the ultimate conclusion of the argument
  5. E
    relies on overly extreme language by claiming that regional bird populations cannot survive under any circumstances

Answer

The argument treats a condition that is necessary for stabilizing bird populations as though it were sufficient to ensure that outcome.
The correct answer accurately identifies the conditional flaw in the argument. The premise establishes that wetland restoration is 'essential' (a necessary condition) for population stabilization. However, the author concludes that completing the restoration guarantees stabilization (treating it as a sufficient condition). Other unmentioned factors—such as invasive predators, extreme weather events, or disease—could still prevent populations from stabilizing.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument
Premise 1 establishes that wetland restoration is 'essential' (necessary) for stabilizing bird populations. Premise 2 states that all historical river basin wetlands have been restored. The conclusion asserts with certainty that bird populations will stabilize.
Deconstructing the argument into its core components is necessary to isolate where the logical jump occurs.
2
Analyze the logical relationship between the stated conditions and the conclusion
The ecologist reasons from 'Stabilization requires Wetland Restoration' and 'Wetland Restoration has occurred' to conclude 'Stabilization is guaranteed.'
This formalizes the argument structure to test for valid deductive reasoning or conditional fallacies.
3
Determine the reasoning flaw
The author commits a conditional error by mistaking a requirement (necessary condition) for a guarantee (sufficient condition), ignoring other factors that could still prevent stabilization.
Identifying the mismatch between what the premises prove and what the conclusion claims pinpoints the precise logical flaw.

Key Concept

Mistaking a Necessary Condition for a Sufficient Condition (Conditional Reversal)
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic