Match each flawed argument with the abstract description that most accurately characterizes its primary reasoning vulnerability.
- Art Historian: Every individual oil painting selected for the upcoming gallery retrospective was completed by the artist in less than one month. Therefore, the retrospective exhibition as an entirety represents no more than a single month of the artist's total creative career.Infers that a whole entity possesses a particular attribute simply because each of its individual constituent parts possesses that attribute.
- Health Researcher: A survey of four hundred elite marathon runners in the capital city revealed that daily electrolyte supplementation improved recovery times without any reported digestive side effects. We can conclude that daily electrolyte supplementation is entirely safe and beneficial for the general adult population.Draws a broad generalized conclusion about a diverse target population based on data collected from an unrepresentative sample.
- Education Analyst: Municipal school districts that established after-school chess clubs last year recorded a twenty percent increase in average standardized mathematics scores compared to previous years. Thus, playing chess directly caused the students' mathematics proficiency to improve.Infers a direct causal relationship between two concurrent occurrences without demonstrating that the observed correlation is not coincidental or driven by confounding factors.
- Network Security Consultant: If an enterprise cloud platform complies with international encryption protocols, it is guaranteed to withstand brute-force login attacks. The Apex platform has failed international encryption audits; consequently, Apex will inevitably succumb to brute-force login attacks.Concludes that a particular outcome will occur solely on the basis that one sufficient condition for preventing that outcome has not been satisfied.
Cevap
The art historian argument matches the part-to-whole composition flaw; the health researcher argument matches the unrepresentative sample generalization flaw; the education analyst argument matches the correlation-to-causation flaw; and the network security consultant argument matches the mistaken negation/denying the antecedent flaw.
Each argument contains a distinct, classic logical vulnerability. The art historian improperly moves from parts to the whole (composition). The health researcher extrapolates from a skewed sample of elite athletes to the general public (unrepresentative sample). The education analyst assumes an observed statistical rise must be caused by a single concurrent initiative without eliminating confounds (correlation-causation). The security consultant negates a sufficient condition to conclude the negative outcome must happen (mistaken negation).
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying Abstract Reasoning Flaws Across Diverse Argumentative Contexts
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s