Match each flawed argument excerpt with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its reasoning error:
- Astrophysicist: Thorough spectroscopic searches of the Kepler-186 stellar system have failed to detect atmospheric biosignatures. Therefore, we can definitively conclude that no biological organisms exist on any planet orbiting that star.Treats the absence of evidence establishing a phenomenon as conclusive evidence that the phenomenon does not exist.
- Patent Attorney: For an algorithmic process to be granted patent protection under current statutory guidelines, it must demonstrate a tangible technical effect on physical hardware. Because the applicant's new encryption algorithm undeniably produces a measurable reduction in hardware circuit temperature during execution, it is guaranteed to receive patent approval.Takes a condition that is necessary for a particular outcome to be sufficient to ensure that outcome.
- Forestry Director: Immediately after our department initiated prescribed understory burns in the northern pine reserve, overall canopy moisture levels increased significantly over the following season. It is clear that conducting prescribed burns directly causes tree canopies to retain greater moisture.Infers that one event caused another merely because the first event preceded the second.
- Clinical Nutritionist: A four-week dietary regimen high in branched-chain amino acids dramatically enhanced muscle protein synthesis in a study of twenty elite collegiate weightlifters. Consequently, adopting this exact regimen will significantly enhance muscle mass for typical adult gym-goers.Draws a broad conclusion about a general population based on a sample whose members possess atypical characteristics.
Answer
The correct pairings match: (1) the astrophysicist's argument with the description of treating absence of evidence as proof of nonexistence, (2) the patent attorney's argument with the description of confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one, (3) the forestry director's argument with the description of inferring causation from temporal succession, and (4) the clinical nutritionist's argument with the description of generalizing from an atypical sample.
Each pair correctly matches a specific argument excerpt with its corresponding structural flaw: failing to find evidence does not prove nonexistence (appeal to ignorance); satisfying a prerequisite does not guarantee an outcome (necessary vs. sufficient confusion); an event preceding another does not establish causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc); and a sample of elite weightlifters cannot be presumed representative of average gym-goers (unrepresentative sample).
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Flaw in the Reasoning
Estimated Time:1m 30s