Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumParallel Flaw

The newly elected representative from the 5th district must support increasing funding for public arts programs. After all, this representative is a member of the national legislature, and the national legislature has consistently voted to increase funding for public arts programs over the past decade.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning that is most similar to the flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above?

  1. A
    The university's chess team must be exceptionally formidable in tournament play. This is because every individual player on the team possesses an exceptionally high international ranking.
  2. B
    Anyone who strongly supports increasing funding for public arts is a champion of civic engagement. The newly elected representative is a champion of civic engagement, so the representative must strongly support increasing funding for public arts.
  3. The judging panel for the international literature prize strongly preferred novels with nonlinear narratives this year. Consequently, since the newly appointed literary critic is a member of this panel, the critic must also strongly prefer novels with nonlinear narratives.Answer
  4. D
    The national legislature recently approved a comprehensive arts initiative. Because the representative from the 5th district helped draft the initiative, the representative's constituents must also strongly favor public arts funding.
  5. E
    Increasing funding for public arts programs must cause economic prosperity in the district. This follows from the fact that the legislature's consistent voting for such funding has always coincided with periods of rapid economic growth.

Answer

The correct answer is the argument about the judging panel for the international literature prize.
The stimulus argument exhibits a classic Fallacy of Division. It observes that a collective body (the national legislature) has a certain characteristic (voting to increase arts funding), and from this, it improperly deduces that a specific individual within that body (the 5th district representative) must personally share that characteristic. The correct answer perfectly mirrors this flawed logical skeleton: it observes that a collective body (the judging panel) has a characteristic (preferring nonlinear narratives) and improperly deduces that a specific individual within that body (the newly appointed literary critic) must personally share that characteristic.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the logical structure of the stimulus argument.
The conclusion asserts that an individual representative has a specific stance. The premise supporting this is that the representative belongs to a group (the legislature) that collectively holds that stance.
Identifying the premise, conclusion, and their relationship is the first step in recognizing the abstract logical structure.
2
Identify the logical flaw in the stimulus.
The argument commits the Fallacy of Division. It incorrectly assumes that a characteristic true of a whole entity or group must necessarily be true of its individual parts or members.
Parallel Flaw questions require you to specifically name or abstract the reasoning error so you can find its exact structural match in the choices.
3
Evaluate the options to find the identical flaw structure (Group -> Member), while ignoring subject matter similarities.
The argument about the judging panel concludes that an individual member (the critic) must have a specific preference simply because the entire group (the panel) demonstrated that preference.
This structural match confirms the correct answer, even though its premise and conclusion are presented in the reverse order of the stimulus.

Key Concept

Fallacy of Division (Part-to-Whole Reasoning Flaw)
Rate this question

Topics

Parallel Flaw

More questions from this topic