Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyFlaw in the Reasoning

Literary Critic: In order to be eligible to win the annual Commonwealth Fiction Prize, a novel must first be officially nominated by a certified literary guild. Records confirm that Julian's latest historical novel was recently nominated by a certified literary guild. Thus, Julian's novel is guaranteed to win the Commonwealth Fiction Prize this year.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the literary critic's reasoning?

  1. A
    attacks the integrity of the certified literary guild rather than evaluating the novel's literary merits
  2. B
    disputes the factual accuracy of the official nomination records presented in the premise
  3. treats a condition that is necessary for winning the prize as one that is sufficient to guarantee winning itAnswer
  4. D
    mistakes a claim that serves as an intermediate conclusion for the argument's main conclusion
  5. E
    relies on an unwarranted assumption that every novel nominated by a guild is of superior quality

Answer

The reasoning is flawed because it treats a condition that is necessary for winning the prize as one that is sufficient to guarantee winning it.
The argument establishes that guild nomination is a necessary requirement for eligibility to win the award. From the fact that this prerequisite is met, the author erroneously deduces that winning the award is guaranteed. This is a classic confusion of a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises and the conclusion of the argument
Premise 1: Winning requires guild nomination (Win → Nominated). Premise 2: Julian's novel was nominated. Conclusion: Julian's novel will win.
Deconstructing the argument into formal conditional components clarifies the logical relationship between terms.
2
Identify the logical disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion
Being nominated is only a prerequisite for eligibility (a necessary condition). Fulfilling a prerequisite does not guarantee the ultimate outcome (a sufficient condition).
Determining why the premise fails to establish the truth of the conclusion is the core task in identifying reasoning flaws.
3
Match the identified flaw with the correct abstract description
The argument confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.
The correct choice must precisely capture this classic conditional reversal error.

Key Concept

Distinction between Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic