Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorFlaw in the Reasoning

Urban Planner: A downtown revitalization project can be considered a true economic catalyst only if it results in a substantial increase in local property values. The proposed waterfront redevelopment will undoubtedly lead to higher property values, as it replaces abandoned warehouses with luxury retail space. Therefore, we should allocate municipal funding to this project, because it is a proven fact that true economic catalysts always generate enough long-term tax revenue to easily justify their initial municipal investments.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the urban planner's argument?

  1. A
    The argument fails to address the possibility that a revitalization project might justify its municipal investment without resulting in a substantial increase in local property values.
  2. B
    The argument fails to establish that replacing abandoned warehouses with luxury retail space is the only way to achieve a substantial increase in property values.
  3. The argument infers that a project belongs to a particular category merely because it produces an outcome that is a prerequisite for belonging to that category.Cevap
  4. D
    The argument confuses a characteristic that is sufficient to categorize a project as a true economic catalyst with a characteristic that is logically required to do so.
  5. E
    The argument relies on the unwarranted assumption that if a project results in a substantial increase in property values, it is guaranteed to be the only project worthy of municipal funding.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option that points out the argument infers a project belongs to a category merely because it produces a prerequisite outcome for that category.
The argument exhibits a formal logic error in its conditional reasoning. The first sentence establishes that a project being an economic catalyst requires it to increase property values. The second sentence asserts that the waterfront project will increase property values. The argument then applies a broad rule about economic catalysts (they always justify investment) to conclude that the waterfront project will justify its investment. To reach this conclusion, the planner must implicitly assume that the waterfront project is an economic catalyst. However, the planner deduces this merely because the project meets a necessary condition (increasing values) for being an economic catalyst. Treating a necessary condition as a sufficient condition is a classic logical flaw, which is perfectly described by the correct answer's abstract wording.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into formal logical premises and conclusion.
Premise 1: True Economic Catalyst (TEC) implies increased property values. Premise 2: The waterfront project will increase property values. Premise 3: TEC implies justified municipal investment. Conclusion: The waterfront project will justify its municipal investment.
Mapping the conditional statements is essential for analyzing the validity of the logical progression.
2
Identify the logical gap or unstated intermediate conclusion used to connect the premises.
To get from Premise 2 to the Conclusion using Premise 3, the planner must implicitly conclude that the waterfront project is a True Economic Catalyst (TEC).
Complex LR questions often hide the primary logical flaw within an unstated intermediate step.
3
Evaluate the validity of the inference leading to the intermediate conclusion.
The planner infers the project is a TEC solely because it increases property values. However, Premise 1 stated that increasing property values is a necessary condition for being a TEC, not a sufficient one. This is a classic Conditional Reversal flaw.
Identifying the specific formal logic error allows you to match it with the correct abstract description in the options.

Anahtar Kavram

Conditional Reversal (Treating a Necessary Condition as Sufficient)
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru