Analyze the reasoning in each of the following flawed arguments. Match each argument with the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical flaw.
- Every brick used in the construction of the new civic center is exceptionally small and fragile. It necessarily follows that the civic center as a whole will be exceptionally small and fragile.The argument erroneously infers that a property possessed by each of the parts making up a whole must also be a property of the whole itself.
- Some of the firm's legal advisors are proficient in corporate tax law, and some of the people proficient in corporate tax law are also expert litigators. Thus, at least some of the firm's legal advisors must be expert litigators.The argument concludes that two distinct groups must intersect purely on the grounds that both groups intersect with the same third group.
- A recent public health study revealed that municipalities with a high concentration of fitness centers also have unusually high rates of locally-owned health food stores. This demonstrates that opening fitness centers in a municipality stimulates the creation of health food stores.The argument infers that one phenomenon is the cause of another entirely on the basis of a positive correlation, ignoring the possibility that a third factor causes both.
- To receive a highly competitive research grant from the foundation, a scientist must have conducted experiments involving human subjects. Dr. Vance has conducted multiple experiments involving human subjects. Therefore, Dr. Vance will certainly be awarded the research grant.The argument confuses a condition whose presence is necessary for a given outcome to occur with a condition whose presence guarantees that outcome.
Cevap
The civic center argument matches the part-to-whole flaw. The legal advisors argument matches the overlapping sets quantifier flaw. The fitness centers argument matches the correlation-causation flaw. The research grant argument matches the necessary/sufficient condition flaw.
Each argument represents a classic logical flaw commonly tested on the LSAT. By abstracting the specific subject matter and focusing entirely on the reasoning structure of each stimulus, we can accurately identify the corresponding abstract flaw description. This is a matching question, so all valid rationales are detailed in the correct pairs.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Parallel Flaw
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s