Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardFlaw in the Reasoning

Read the following stimulus carefully:

Economist: A currency cannot be considered truly stable unless it is backed by a tangible commodity, such as gold or silver. Historical records indicate that the currency of the ancient Empire of Valoria was fully backed by vast reserves of silver. Furthermore, Valoria's economy experienced nearly three centuries of uninterrupted growth and high trade volume. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that the Valorian currency was truly stable.

Determine whether the following description of the argument's flaw is true or false: The argument is vulnerable to criticism because it concludes that a condition is necessary for a currency to be considered truly stable on the grounds that this condition is sufficient to establish such stability.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False
The correct answer is False because the statement describes the exact reverse of the actual logical flaw in the stimulus. The stimulus establishes that commodity backing is necessary for stability ('cannot be stable unless...'). It then concludes that because Valoria had commodity backing, it was stable—thus treating a necessary condition as sufficient. The statement provided incorrectly claims the argument does the opposite (treating a sufficient condition as necessary).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Diagram the conditional logic in the first sentence to identify the established relationship.
Stable Currency -> Backed by Tangible Commodity. This means commodity backing is a necessary condition for stability.
The phrase 'cannot be... unless' introduces a necessary condition.
2
Identify the application of the conditional logic in the remainder of the argument.
The argument states Valoria had the necessary condition (backed by silver) and concludes it achieved the sufficient condition (stable currency).
This shows how the author uses the premise to support the conclusion.
3
Determine the precise logical flaw committed by the economist.
The argument treats a necessary condition (commodity backing) as a sufficient condition for stability (an Illegal Reversal).
Affirming the consequent is a classic logical fallacy.
4
Evaluate the proposed statement against the identified flaw.
The statement claims the argument treats a sufficient condition as a necessary one. This is the exact opposite of the actual flaw, making the statement false.
Precision in identifying the directionality of conditional logic flaws is required.

Key Concept

Identifying the precise directionality of a necessary vs. sufficient condition flaw (Illegal Reversal).
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic