Each of the three arguments below exhibits a distinct flaw in its reasoning. Match each argument with the statement that most accurately identifies its primary logical flaw.
- Councilor Vance argues that the city should invest in light rail transit, but Vance owns stock in a railway engineering company. Therefore, we should reject the light rail proposal.Dismisses an argument solely on the basis of the purported financial interest or motives of the person making it.
- Either our retail firm adopts an aggressive price-discounting campaign this quarter, or the business will be forced to shut down entirely before the end of the fiscal year.Assumes without justification that only two extreme possibilities exist when moderate alternatives remain.
- Journalists have a duty to report on matters that are of public interest. Because the public is deeply interested in the private lives of film actors, newspapers have an obligation to publish those details.Equivocates between what is in the public's well-being and what merely excites public curiosity.
Cevap
The argument targeting the councilor matches the dismissal based on personal financial motives; the retail argument matches the assumption that only two extreme possibilities exist; and the journalism argument matches the equivocation between public well-being and public curiosity.
Each flawed argument exhibits a direct correspondence to a distinct logical vulnerability: attacking the proponent's financial stake rather than the merits of the proposal constitutes a source argument; presenting only two extreme options while overlooking moderate paths constitutes a false dichotomy; and shifting the definition of a pivotal term across premises and conclusion constitutes equivocation.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identification of classical informal fallacies (Source Attack, False Dilemma, Equivocation) in logical reasoning stimuli.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s