The arguments below each commit a distinct informal reasoning error. Which flaw description correctly characterizes each respective argument?
- Museum Curator: Our institution is legally bound to act in the public interest. Because recent visitor surveys reveal widespread public interest in pop-music celebrity memorabilia, mounting an exhibition of pop-music stage costumes is our foremost institutional duty.Conflates what is of curious attention or entertainment to the public with what promotes the general welfare of the public.
- Acoustics Consultant: Dr. Vance contends that installing fiberglass acoustic panels in the concert hall will lead to fiber degradation within two years. However, Dr. Vance holds substantial equity in a company that produces cellular foam soundproofing. Hence, fiberglass acoustic panels will remain durable indefinitely.Concludes that a factual assessment is false merely on the grounds that its proponent has a personal financial interest in the matter.
- Software Architect: Every separate encryption module incorporated into the new network security suite underwent rigorous stress testing without registering any latency delays. It follows that the complete security suite assembled from these modules will function without producing system latency.Infers that a composite whole will exhibit a specific operational property merely because each of its constituent components exhibits that property in isolation.
- Civic Planner: The city council must either entirely ban commercial freight trucks from the historic harbor district or permit completely unrestricted commercial trucking. Because a total ban would severely harm waterfront shipping businesses, the council must allow unrestricted trucking.Assumes without justification that only two extreme policy courses are possible when intermediate measures could be implemented.
Cevap
Match the Museum Curator argument to the flaw conflating public welfare with public curiosity; match the Acoustics Consultant argument to the flaw rejecting a claim based on source bias; match the Software Architect argument to the fallacy of composition; match the Civic Planner argument to the false dilemma flaw.
Each argument is correctly paired with the description of its underlying vulnerability: the curator shifts between distinct senses of 'public interest' (equivocation); the acoustics consultant treats a conflict of interest as proof that the opposing claim is false (source bias); the software architect attributes a component-level property to the whole system (fallacy of composition); and the civic planner unnecessarily restricts choices to two extremes (false dilemma).
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying informal logical fallacies in short argumentative passages and pairing them with formal abstract descriptions.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s