Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: KolayParallel Flaw

Match each flawed argument below to the abstract description that most accurately identifies its logical error.

  • Anyone who gets the promotion will buy a new car. Therefore, since Sarah bought a new car, she must have gotten the promotion.The argument treats a condition that is necessary for a certain outcome as if it were a condition that guarantees that outcome.
  • If the company increases its marketing budget, profits will rise. However, the company will not increase its marketing budget, so profits will certainly not rise.The argument mistakenly concludes that because a sufficient condition has not been met, the necessary condition cannot be met.
  • The symphony orchestra is known worldwide for its flawless timing. Therefore, the orchestra's newly hired violinist must have flawless timing.The argument assumes that a characteristic belonging to a group as a whole must necessarily belong to each individual member of that group.
  • We should reject Dr. Smith's findings regarding the new food additive. After all, Dr. Smith was recently involved in a highly publicized tax evasion scandal.The argument dismisses a conclusion entirely based on the personal flaws of its proponent rather than addressing the merits of the evidence.

Cevap

Argument 1 matches with treating a necessary condition as sufficient; Argument 2 matches with confusing the lack of a sufficient condition for the lack of a necessary condition; Argument 3 matches with the whole-to-part composition error; Argument 4 matches with the ad hominem source attack.
Each argument perfectly models one of the classic logical flaws tested on the LSAT: illegal reversal, illegal negation, composition (whole-to-part), and ad hominem. The corresponding abstract descriptions accurately summarize these precise structural errors without relying on the specific subject matter.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first argument's conditional structure.
Identify it as a conditional reasoning flaw where the necessary condition is used to incorrectly guarantee the sufficient condition.
To match it with the 'necessary treated as sufficient' description.
2
Analyze the second argument's conditional structure.
Identify it as a conditional reasoning flaw where the denial of the sufficient condition is incorrectly used to deny the necessary condition.
To match it with the 'sufficient condition not met' description.
3
Analyze the scope of the third argument.
Identify it as a composition flaw where an attribute of the orchestra is incorrectly applied to an individual member.
To match it with the 'characteristic of a group applied to a member' description.
4
Analyze the focus of the fourth argument.
Identify it as a source argument flaw where the author attacks the researcher instead of the research.
To match it with the 'dismissing a conclusion based on personal flaws' description.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying abstract logical flaws within varied arguments.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Parallel Flaw

Bu konudan daha fazla soru