Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorFlaw in the Reasoning

City Council Member: A municipality will halt the rapid escalation of its residential property values only if it successfully enacts stringent zoning deregulation. Consequently, because the neighboring district of Oakhaven has just finalized the most aggressive zoning deregulation package in our state's history, we can be certain that Oakhaven's residential property values will halt their escalation in the near future.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the council member's reasoning?

  1. A
    infers a causal relationship between zoning policies and property values based merely on a coincidental correlation
  2. B
    allows the meaning of the phrase 'zoning deregulation' to shift illicitly between the premise and the conclusion
  3. presumes, without providing justification, that satisfying a prerequisite for a given outcome is enough to guarantee that outcomeCevap
  4. D
    assumes that a policy enacted by a single district will necessarily dictate the economic trends of the entire state
  5. E
    draws a conclusion about the absolute value of properties based on evidence regarding the rate of change in those values

Cevap

The argument concludes that fulfilling a necessary condition (zoning deregulation) is sufficient to ensure the outcome (halting property value escalation).
The council member's argument establishes that stringent zoning deregulation is a requirement ('only if') for halting the escalation of property values. However, the conclusion assumes that because Oakhaven met this requirement, success is absolutely certain. This flawed reasoning mistakenly treats a necessary prerequisite as a sufficient guarantee.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the conditional structure of the first premise.
The phrase 'only if' introduces a necessary condition: Halting escalation requires stringent zoning deregulation.
Identifying formal logic relationships is essential for spotting structural flaws.
2
Examine the application of the premise to the specific case of Oakhaven.
The argument observes that Oakhaven has satisfied the necessary condition by enacting aggressive zoning deregulation.
This establishes how the general rule is applied to the specific real-world scenario.
3
Evaluate the conclusion drawn from the premises.
The argument concludes that Oakhaven is guaranteed to achieve the outcome (halting escalation) simply because it met the requirement.
Comparing the premises to the conclusion reveals the logical gap in the reasoning.
4
Identify the logical error.
The reasoning treats a condition that is required for an outcome as if it were a condition that guarantees the outcome.
This confirms the presence of a Necessary vs. Sufficient condition flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing between necessary conditions (requirements) and sufficient conditions (guarantees)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru