Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardAppeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

Environmental Advocate: The proposed multinational treaty to permit deep-sea mining should be rejected immediately. Dr. Aris Thorne, the world’s preeminent marine biologist and leading authority on abyssal plain ecosystems, recently testified that the short-term revenue generated by deep-sea mining will inevitably be overshadowed by the long-term financial collapse of global fisheries. Since no single individual possesses a deeper understanding of the ocean's intricate ecosystems than Dr. Thorne, we must accept his conclusion that deep-sea mining is a disastrous economic strategy.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the environmental advocate's reasoning?

  1. relies on the judgment of an expert in a matter that falls outside the boundaries of that expert's established competenceAnswer
  2. B
    fails to address the possibility that other prominent marine biologists might reject Dr. Thorne's specific findings regarding abyssal plain ecosystems
  3. C
    assumes that what is economically detrimental for the global fisheries sector must also be economically detrimental for the global economy as a whole
  4. D
    confuses a mere correlation between ecological changes and financial trends with a causal relationship
  5. E
    relies on an ambiguous shift in the meaning of the word 'strategy' from the premises to the conclusion

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating the argument relies on the judgment of an expert in a matter that falls outside the boundaries of that expert's established competence.
The argument concludes that deep-sea mining is a 'disastrous economic strategy' based entirely on the testimony of Dr. Thorne. The author justifies relying on Dr. Thorne by citing his unparalleled expertise as a 'marine biologist' and his understanding of 'intricate ecosystems.' However, expertise in marine biology does not translate to expertise in global economics or financial forecasting. Therefore, the argument is flawed because it relies on the judgment of an expert (Dr. Thorne) in a field (economics) that is outside his established area of competence (biology).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's main conclusion.
The conclusion is that deep-sea mining is a 'disastrous economic strategy'.
This is the final claim the advocate is trying to prove, indicated by 'we must accept his conclusion that...'.
2
Identify the primary premise supporting this conclusion.
The premise is that Dr. Thorne, a 'preeminent marine biologist' and expert on 'intricate ecosystems', claims the long-term financial costs will outweigh short-term revenues.
The author explicitly justifies the conclusion by appealing to Dr. Thorne's unparalleled understanding of the ocean's ecosystems.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premise and the conclusion to find the logical gap.
There is a mismatch between the expert's credentials and the nature of the claim. Dr. Thorne's expertise is in biology, but the claim he is making (and that the author accepts) is about economics and finance.
To identify a flaw in reasoning, one must look for why the premises do not logically guarantee the conclusion.
4
Select the option that matches this logical gap.
The argument commits an appeal to an unqualified authority.
Trusting an expert's opinion on a subject outside their field is a classic logical fallacy.

Key Concept

Appeal Fallacies (Unqualified Authority)
Rate this question

Topics

Appeal Fallacies (Authority, Emotion, Majority)

More questions from this topic