#11 - University spokesperson: Most of the students surveyed

[Eric Ockert]

Answer Choice (B)

Tanush, here is the response to your follow up question on answer choice (B).

mN2mmvf's response is spot on. The key language here is "likely." Remember, that as a Prove Family question, provability is always in the background as you analyze your answers. So you can definitely encounter answers that use exaggerated language that take the flaw description beyond what would be supported in the stimulus. So here, while it is certainly possible that the survey is unrepresentative, there is no evidence present to suggest that. So to say that the survey is likely unrepresentative undoubtedly goes too far.

And be careful. Even though the majority of students surveyed would prefer something other than the current dining service, we don't know that they would prefer Hill.

Hope that helps!

[avengingangel]

I don't follow this stimulus at all. Who cares if Hall Dining Services was their vendor last year? How does that present an issue (enough for the Univ spokesperson to use "however") ??? All the survey asked was if they wanted a different vendor from the current one. It seems totally fine to me that last year's vendor is the only alternative they could hire, even if the students WERE aware of that fact. Plus, that is totally in the realm of possibilities to happen, if the school were to hire a different vendor from the current one. Am I missing something??

[Adam Tyson]

The problem is that the author only knows that the students want someone else, and he concludes that anyone else would be an acceptable choice. But what if the students wouldn't want just anyone else? What if they want someone better? What if the whole reason we have the new vendor this year is because the one we had last year was even worse?

Imagine a parallel argument about a spouse. You're not happy with your current one, you want a new one. If the only person willing to marry you is your ex, does that mean you want to marry your ex? Or might you prefer someone new instead? Knowing your options might be important!

[The Stig]

Is there a formal name that succinctly titles this flawed method of logical reasoning? Adam's parallel flaw argument really helped illustrate the issue with this type of reasoning, but I have no idea how to label it in my head.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Stig,

If anything, the more generalized problem is the spokesperson's arriving at too specific a conclusion from evidence that is both general and ambiguous, rooted in the spokesperson's failure to consider the possibilities (or lack of possibilities) such general and ambiguous evidence allows for. But that's a pretty broad way of describing the problem, and I wouldn't give it a "formal" label (like I would a Mistaken Reversal, or an ad hominem, or circular reasoning). The good news is there's no real need to label that kind of flaw. What you have to do is recognize that the conclusion isn't compelled based on the possibilities left open in the evidence of student preference. And then go find an answer that describes one possibility that could damage the conclusion. Many flaw questions are similarly rooted in a failure to consider possibilities left open by the evidence that could damage the conclusion. What those possibilities are will vary depending on the subject being discussed.

I hope this helps!