Aviation Safety Consultant: In order for a newly designed commercial cargo drone to receive flight clearance from the civil aviation authority, it must be equipped with an automated collision-avoidance radar system. The AeroHawk drone model has been equipped with an automated collision-avoidance radar system. Therefore, the civil aviation authority will certainly grant flight clearance to the AeroHawk.
Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the aviation safety consultant's reasoning?
- Apresumes without justification that an event that is correlated with another event must have been caused by it
- Bbases its conclusion on an attack against the regulatory authority's credibility rather than on its technical requirements
- treats a condition that is necessary for receiving flight clearance as if it were sufficient to guarantee receiving that clearanceAnswer
- Drejects the possibility that the AeroHawk drone actually possesses an automated collision-avoidance radar
- Epresupposes that automated collision-avoidance radar systems never suffer technical malfunctions
Answer
The argument is flawed because it treats a condition that is necessary for receiving flight clearance as if it were sufficient to guarantee receiving that clearance.
The correct response accurately captures the structural flaw: the consultant establishes that having an automated collision-avoidance radar is a necessary requirement ('in order for... it must be equipped') for receiving flight clearance. However, the consultant erroneously treats satisfying this single prerequisite as sufficient to guarantee that clearance will be granted, ignoring the fact that other regulatory criteria may still need to be satisfied.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Mistaken Reversal / Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Estimated Time:1m 0s