Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorFlaw in the Reasoning

Behavioral Economist: A digital subscription platform will retain a majority of its first-year subscribers only if it implements algorithmic customization that matches user preferences with high precision. StreamCore has just deployed a state-of-the-art algorithmic customization system that predicts and matches user preferences with unprecedented accuracy. Therefore, StreamCore is assured of retaining a majority of its first-year subscribers.

The reasoning in the behavioral economist's argument is flawed because the argument

  1. A
    rejects the possibility that user preference matching could be achieved through non-algorithmic methods
  2. B
    confuses a claim that serves as intermediate evidence regarding software deployment with the main conclusion about business viability
  3. treats a condition that is necessary for retaining a majority of subscribers as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcomeCevap
  4. D
    attacks the truth of the premise that subscriber retention depends upon matching user preferences
  5. E
    presumes that algorithmic customization is the sole factor that will ever influence any aspect of platform performance

Cevap

The argument treats a condition that is necessary for retaining a majority of subscribers as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The economist's premise states that implementing high-precision algorithmic customization is a necessary condition ('only if') for retaining a majority of first-year subscribers. However, the conclusion infers that because StreamCore satisfied this necessary condition, retention of the majority is guaranteed. This erroneously treats a required prerequisite as a sufficient guarantee.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the premises and conclusion in the stimulus
Premise 1: Retain majority of subscribers → Implement high-precision algorithmic customization (indicated by 'only if'). Premise 2: StreamCore implemented high-precision algorithmic customization. Conclusion: StreamCore will retain a majority of its first-year subscribers.
Deconstructing the argument into formal conditional components reveals the logical relationship between terms.
2
Analyze the validity of the deduction
The argument affirms the necessary condition (the consequent) and incorrectly concludes the sufficient condition (the antecedent). This is a classic fallacy of the converse (confusing necessary and sufficient conditions).
Meeting a necessary requirement is required for an outcome, but does not guarantee that other factors might not prevent the outcome.
3
Match the identified flaw to the accurate descriptive choice
The statement describing the mistake of treating a necessary condition as a sufficient condition accurately captures the logical error.
Flaw questions require an accurate description of the reasoning vulnerability connecting the premises to the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions in Conditional Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru