Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTime Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future)

Agronomist: Since the widespread adoption of synthetic nitrate fertilizers in this region thirty years ago, the annual per-hectare yield of corn has increased by at least two percent every single harvest. The regional climate and soil types have not changed during this timeframe. Therefore, farmers in this region who continue using these synthetic nitrate fertilizers can reliably expect their corn yields to continue growing by at least two percent annually for the foreseeable future.

The reasoning in the agronomist's argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. inappropriately relies on the assumption that a historical rate of change will extend indefinitely into the futureAnswer
  2. B
    concludes that a specific agricultural practice is responsible for an effect merely because the practice and the effect were observed during the same time period
  3. C
    concludes that what is true of the region's overall agricultural output over a given period must also be true of every individual farm within that region
  4. D
    fails to consider that the initial increase in corn yields might have been due to an unmentioned factor, such as the introduction of more resilient seed varieties
  5. E
    uses the concept of unchanged environmental conditions in two distinct and incompatible ways throughout the course of the reasoning

Answer

The correct answer identifies that the argument inappropriately relies on the assumption that a historical rate of change will extend indefinitely into the future.
The correct answer accurately diagnoses the structural flaw in the agronomist's reasoning. The agronomist observes a past trend (a 2 percent annual yield increase over thirty years) and assumes this exact rate of growth will continue indefinitely ('for the foreseeable future'). This is a classic Time Shift Flaw, as it ignores the reality that past trends often face eventual limits (e.g., soil depletion, biological maximums) and cannot simply be projected forward without justification.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises to determine the basis of the argument.
The premises establish a past and present trend: corn yields have increased by 2 percent annually for thirty years alongside the use of synthetic fertilizers.
Understanding the evidence is required to evaluate how it connects to the conclusion.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
The conclusion predicts that farmers can expect yields to continue growing by at least 2 percent annually for the foreseeable future.
The logical flaw exists in the gap between the given evidence and the final conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument takes a historical trend (past 30 years) and directly projects it into the future, assuming no changes or natural limits will interrupt this continuous exponential growth.
This is the structural vulnerability of the argument, known as a Time Shift Flaw.
4
Select the option that best abstracts and describes this temporal error.
The option stating the argument assumes a historical rate of change will extend indefinitely perfectly encapsulates the Time Shift Flaw.
This matches the identified logical gap without introducing outside information.

Key Concept

Time Shift Flaws occur when an argument assumes that conditions or trends that were true in the past will necessarily continue to be true in the future, failing to account for variables that change over time or natural limits (such as biological caps on crop yields).
Rate this question

Topics

Time Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future)

More questions from this topic