Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: KolayFlaw in the Reasoning

Factory Safety Director: Last year, 85 percent of the reported injuries at our manufacturing plant happened during the morning shift, whereas only 15 percent occurred during the evening shift. It is clear from this data that our morning shift operations are inherently more hazardous than our evening shift operations.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the Factory Safety Director's reasoning?

  1. A
    assumes a causal relationship between the time of day and the occurrence of injuries based merely on a statistical correlation
  2. B
    illicitly shifts the meaning of the term "hazardous" between the premises and the conclusion
  3. fails to consider the comparative number of employees working during each of the two shiftsCevap
  4. D
    treats a condition that is necessary for an injury to happen as though it were sufficient to guarantee an injury
  5. E
    criticizes the safety of the morning shift without proposing a viable solution to reduce the number of injuries

Cevap

The option stating that the argument fails to consider the comparative number of employees working during each of the two shifts.
The correct answer identifies that the Director uses percentages of the total number of injuries to compare the relative danger (hazard level) of two shifts. However, a higher proportion of total injuries does not necessarily mean the shift is more dangerous for an individual worker. If the morning shift employs 1,000 workers and the evening shift employs only 10 workers, the morning shift would naturally have a much larger percentage of the total injuries even if the evening shift is vastly more dangerous per worker. The argument fundamentally confuses proportions of a total with relative rates by failing to account for the population size of each shift.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premise and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: 85% of total injuries were on the morning shift, 15% on the evening shift. Conclusion: The morning shift is more hazardous.
Breaking down the argument structure is the first step to evaluating its logical validity.
2
Analyze the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion to locate the logical gap.
The argument leaps from a statistic about the share of total injuries (a percentage of the whole) to a conclusion about relative danger (which requires knowing the rate of injury per worker).
Identifying missing information reveals the flaw in the reasoning.
3
Match the gap to standard logical fallacies.
This is a classic 'Percentages vs. Numbers' flaw. If the morning shift has significantly more workers than the evening shift, it would naturally account for a larger percentage of total injuries, even if the actual risk (hazard) to any individual worker is identical or lower.
Recognizing the exact fallacy type allows for accurate prephrasing of the correct answer choice.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Percentages vs. Numbers
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru