The argumentative excerpts in the left column each exhibit a characteristic structural reasoning flaw. Match each flawed argumentative excerpt with the statement in the right column that most accurately and precisely describes its logical vulnerability.
- Marine Archaeologist: Analysis of timber hulls recovered from sixteenth-century naval engagements reveals that over eighty percent of preserved wreckage exhibits reinforcement along the lower keel rather than the upper gunwales. Therefore, shipbuilders of that era must have prioritized protecting keels against submerged hazards over shielding upper hull structures from naval artillery.Draws a broad empirical conclusion about historical design practices from a sample that is systematically distorted by differential survival rates.
- Agricultural Economist: Every individual citrus orchard in the valley can maximize its annual net revenue during a regional drought by adopting automated deep-well irrigation to boost its own yield. It follows that if all citrus orchards in the valley simultaneously adopt deep-well irrigation during a drought, the total annual net revenue of the valley's citrus industry will be maximized.Infers that an action that produces an advantageous outcome when undertaken by any single actor in isolation will necessarily produce an optimal outcome when undertaken collectively by all actors.
- Health Policy Analyst: The municipal council's initiative to install full-spectrum ambient lighting across all transit hubs aims to reduce seasonal affective symptoms among winter commuters. However, the consulting firm that recommended this initiative is owned by the spouse of the lighting manufacturer chosen for the municipal contract. Thus, replacing the existing lighting will clearly do nothing to alleviate seasonal affective symptoms.Concludes that a proposed measure will be completely ineffective on the sole basis that an advocate for that measure has an underlying financial interest.
Answer
The marine archaeologist excerpt matches the description of drawing a broad empirical conclusion from a sample systematically distorted by differential survival rates; the agricultural economist excerpt matches the description of inferring that what benefits a single actor in isolation must optimize outcomes when undertaken collectively by all actors; and the health policy analyst excerpt matches the description of concluding a measure is ineffective solely because an advocate has an underlying financial interest.
Each excerpt exhibits a classic reasoning flaw: the marine archaeologist commits a survivorship sampling error by assuming preserved artifacts represent all historical artifacts; the agricultural economist commits a part-to-whole fallacy of composition by equating individual economic advantage with aggregate collective benefit; and the health policy analyst commits an ad hominem fallacy by rejecting the efficacy of a policy based exclusively on the financial ties of its proponent.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Flaw Identification and Fallacy Categorization
Estimated Time:2m 30s