An editorial review board for an analytical philosophy journal is classifying four short arguments according to their underlying patterns of reasoning and formal defects. Match each argument on the left with the logical description or flaw on the right that it exemplifies.
- Argument 1: Any candidate who secures a majority of delegate votes at the national convention is guaranteed the party nomination. Candidate Vance failed to secure a majority of delegate votes at the national convention. Therefore, Vance will definitely not receive the party nomination.Denying the antecedent by concluding that the absence of a sufficient condition guarantees the absence of the necessary condition.
- Argument 2: If a municipal transit overhaul successfully reduces peak travel delays, commercial retail revenue increases in the subsequent fiscal quarter. Commercial retail revenue did increase in the subsequent fiscal quarter. Thus, the municipal transit overhaul must have successfully reduced peak travel delays.Affirming the consequent by treating the occurrence of a necessary condition as sufficient proof that the initial condition occurred.
- Argument 3: Every individual component selected for the newly engineered deep-sea exploration probe is buoyant and pressure-resistant. It follows that the assembled deep-sea exploration probe as an entire unit must be buoyant and pressure-resistant.Committing a fallacy of composition by improperly inferring that an entire system possesses an attribute simply because each of its constituent parts possesses it.
- Argument 4: Most members of the regional environmental commission voted to approve the watershed management plan. Commissioner Zhao is a member of the regional environmental commission. Therefore, Commissioner Zhao certainly voted to approve the watershed management plan.Confusing probabilistic prevalence with absolute certainty by inferring that a specific individual must possess an attribute merely because a majority of the group possesses it.
Answer
Argument 1 matches with denying the antecedent; Argument 2 matches with affirming the consequent; Argument 3 matches with the fallacy of composition; Argument 4 matches with confusing probabilistic prevalence with absolute certainty.
Each argument is correctly mapped to its precise structural defect: Argument 1 denies the antecedent condition to infer the absence of the outcome; Argument 2 treats the occurrence of the consequence as establishing the antecedent cause; Argument 3 illegitimately transfers component-level traits to the complete assembled unit; and Argument 4 treats a majority frequency within a group as an absolute certainty for an individual member.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Evaluating isomorphic deductive structures, conditional logic fallacies, compositional errors, and quantifier strength mismatches across arguments.