Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorEvaluating Reasoning Flaws

A municipal transportation authority installed high-definition security cameras across all urban railway platforms last year to deter vandalism. Over the subsequent twelve months, reported incidents of platform vandalism decreased by thirty percent. The authority concluded that the installation of the security cameras was the primary factor in reducing platform vandalism. However, during the exact same twelve-month period, the city doubled the number of uniformed police officers patrolling those platforms.

The reasoning in the transportation authority's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. fails to consider that a concurrent change in patrolling policy might account for the reduction in reported vandalismCevap
  2. B
    fails to establish that security cameras are capable of identifying suspects after a crime has taken place
  3. C
    presumes without justification that uniformed police officers are inherently less effective at deterring crime than security cameras
  4. D
    provides evidence that demonstrates that security cameras are completely ineffective at deterring offenses other than vandalism
  5. E
    unwarrantedly assumes that a reduction in platform vandalism will lead to a broader decrease in overall municipal crime rates

Cevap

The argument is vulnerable to criticism because it fails to consider that a concurrent change in patrolling policy might account for the reduction in reported vandalism.
The correct answer accurately points out that the argument attributes the decrease in vandalism exclusively to the camera installation while failing to account for a concurrent factor—the doubling of police patrols—that could equally or primarily explain the outcome.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Premise: Security cameras were installed, and platform vandalism dropped by 30%. Conclusion: The cameras were the primary cause of the drop.
Understanding the precise structure of the argument isolates the claim being evaluated.
2
Analyze the context for potential logical fallacies.
A confounding variable is present: the city also doubled uniformed police patrols during the exact same period.
Attributing an outcome solely to one intervention while ignoring a simultaneous major change constitutes a classic correlation-versus-causation error.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to locate the option describing this vulnerability.
The statement highlighting the failure to consider the concurrent change in patrolling policy accurately describes the vulnerability.
This option directly points out the unaddressed alternative cause for the decline in vandalism.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws: Ignoring Alternative Causes (Confounding Variables)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Evaluating Reasoning Flaws

Bu konudan daha fazla soru