Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardArgument by Elimination

Financial Analyst: We are investigating the abrupt collapse of the nation's largest agricultural bank. Historically, such catastrophic banking failures in this region have stemmed from either systemic fraudulent lending practices or a sudden, devastating plunge in agricultural commodity prices. An exhaustive independent audit, however, has recently confirmed that the bank's lending practices strictly adhered to all regulatory standards and exhibited no signs of fraud. We can definitively conclude, therefore, that a precipitous drop in agricultural commodity prices is responsible for the bank's collapse.

The financial analyst's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. It takes for granted that the set of historically established causes for a phenomenon constitutes an exhaustive list of plausible causes for a current instance of that phenomenon.Answer
  2. B
    It concludes that a causal relationship exists between two events based solely on the observation that they have frequently been associated in the past.
  3. C
    It fails to consider the possibility that a seemingly rigorous independent audit might nonetheless fail to uncover highly sophisticated instances of fraudulent lending.
  4. D
    It confuses a condition that is sufficient to prevent a banking collapse with a condition that is strictly necessary for such a collapse to occur.
  5. E
    It presumes, without providing independent evidentiary justification, that a devastating plunge in agricultural commodity prices actually occurred prior to the bank's collapse.

Answer

The argument is flawed because it takes for granted that the historically established causes constitute an exhaustive list of plausible causes.
The analyst employs an argument by elimination, reasoning that since historically collapses stem from either fraud or price plunges, and fraud has been ruled out, a price plunge must be the cause. This reasoning contains a classic False Dilemma flaw: it assumes that past historical causes are the ONLY possible causes for a current event. By taking for granted that this historical list is exhaustive, the analyst improperly ignores other plausible modern explanations.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure and method of reasoning.
The argument states that historically, collapses are caused by A (fraud) or B (price plunge). It provides evidence to eliminate A. It concludes B must be the cause.
Identifying the method of reasoning (Argument by Elimination) is essential to finding its logical vulnerability.
2
Evaluate the logical validity of the elimination process.
The elimination would be valid IF A and B were the only possible causes. However, the premise only states they are 'historically' the causes.
An argument by elimination is only sound if the initial set of possibilities is exhaustive.
3
Identify the core flaw.
The flaw is a False Dilemma. The analyst assumes that because A and B were the only historical causes, they are the only possible causes today, ignoring new potential factors.
This bridges the gap between the premises provided and the definitive conclusion drawn.
4
Select the option that best describes this False Dilemma.
The correct option points out that the argument assumes the historical causes form an exhaustive list.
This abstractly and accurately describes the logical flaw in the argument's process of elimination.

Key Concept

Argument by Elimination / False Dilemma
Estimated Time:2m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Argument by Elimination

More questions from this topic