Analyze the following four arguments. Pair each argument with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its reasoning error.
- Nutritionist: A comprehensive survey of office workers shows that those who frequently consume artisan coffee have significantly higher productivity levels than those who do not. Clearly, the specific blend of nutrients in artisan coffee directly boosts cognitive output and workplace efficiency.Concludes that one phenomenon produces another merely because the two phenomena are observed to occur together.
- Philosopher: We must accept that human actions are dictated by the laws of nature. After all, everything in the universe is subject to the law of gravity, and it is a law that we cannot break. Therefore, people who break the law should not be held morally responsible for their actions.Trades on the ambiguity of a particular word, using it in one sense in the premise and a completely different sense in the conclusion.
- Safety Inspector: To pass the annual safety certification, a manufacturing plant must have functional emergency exits and up-to-date fire extinguishers. The Riverdale factory recently installed brand new fire extinguishers and ensured all emergency exits are fully functional. Consequently, the Riverdale factory will definitely pass its annual safety certification.Fails to recognize that satisfying a requirement for a result is not the same as ensuring that the result occurs.
- Traffic Commissioner: Our new highway interchange has been criticized as being exceptionally dangerous. However, last year only 4 percent of all traffic accidents in the county occurred at this new interchange, while a staggering 18 percent of all accidents occurred at the downtown roundabout. Therefore, it is definitively safer to drive through the new interchange than the downtown roundabout.Reaches a conclusion about comparative risk by relying on the proportion of total incidents, while ignoring the underlying baseline quantities that produce those proportions.
Cevap
The Nutritionist argument commits a Correlation vs. Causation flaw; the Philosopher argument commits an Equivocation flaw; the Safety Inspector argument commits a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw; and the Traffic Commissioner argument commits a Percentages vs. Numbers flaw.
Each argument contains a specific, classic logical fallacy that perfectly matches one of the abstract descriptions provided. Analyzing the gap between the premises and the conclusion in each stimulus reveals the exact nature of the flaw.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying Classic Logical Flaws