Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumFlaw in the Reasoning

Match each flawed argument to the description that most accurately identifies the vulnerability in its reasoning.

  • Sociologist: Neighborhoods with a high concentration of community gardens consistently report significantly lower property crime rates than other neighborhoods. Thus, establishing community gardens directly reduces criminal activity in those areas.Takes an observed correlation between two phenomena as sufficient proof that one phenomenon causes the other.
  • Art Critic: Every true masterpiece profoundly challenges the artistic conventions of its era. This controversial new painting has undoubtedly challenged contemporary artistic conventions, so it must be considered a true masterpiece.Mistakes a condition that is necessary for a particular classification for a condition that is sufficient to guarantee that classification.
  • Traffic Analyst: The initiative to replace traditional traffic lights with roundabouts has worsened road safety. Last year, there were over 400 collisions at roundabouts across the city, compared to only 120 at traditional intersections.Draws a conclusion about relative safety based on absolute numbers, without considering the total volume or proportion of instances being compared.
  • Political Commentator: The councilwoman's proposal to increase funding for public transit should be disregarded. She is a known investor in several major construction firms that stand to benefit significantly from transit infrastructure contracts.Rejects an argument's conclusion by questioning the motives of the person advancing it, rather than evaluating the argument's premises.

Answer

The Sociologist's argument commits a correlation-to-causation fallacy. The Art Critic's argument commits a necessary versus sufficient condition fallacy. The Traffic Analyst's argument commits a numbers versus percentages fallacy. The Political Commentator's argument commits an ad hominem (source) fallacy.
Each flawed argument exhibits a classic LSAT logical fallacy. The Sociologist jumps from correlation to causation. The Art Critic illegally reverses a conditional statement. The Traffic Analyst misuses absolute numbers to make a claim about comparative rates. The Political Commentator attacks the source's motives rather than the argument itself.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Sociologist's argument.
The argument moves from a statistical association ('consistently report significantly lower') to a causal claim ('directly reduces').
Identifying the premise-to-conclusion relationship reveals the flaw of assuming correlation implies causation.
2
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Art Critic's argument.
The premise sets up a requirement ('Every true masterpiece profoundly challenges...'), while the conclusion treats meeting that requirement as a guarantee of being a masterpiece.
Translating the argument into conditional logic exposes the illegal reversal (confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one).
3
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Traffic Analyst's argument.
The conclusion about relative safety ('worsened road safety') is supported only by raw collision counts (400 vs. 120).
Evaluating the evidence shows that absolute numbers cannot prove rates or safety without knowing the total number of intersections of each type.
4
Analyze the reasoning structure of the Political Commentator's argument.
The argument concludes that a policy proposal should be 'disregarded' strictly because the author stands to benefit financially.
Focusing on the nature of the evidence reveals an attack on the speaker's motives rather than a critique of the policy itself.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic