- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 17, 2016 10:51 am
#24964
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer is (C)
This stimulus describes some changes in common wisdom about the nutritional value of two different foods. In both cases, the food initially was determined to be unhealthy. Later, it turned out that the foods had certain health benefits, at least according to one report. It is important to note that the author does not challenge the original health concerns about chocolate and olive oil, but only provides evidence of possible benefits while ignoring the risks. From the two examples given, the author concludes that almost any food will be reported to be healthful.
The author’s conclusion that if you wait long enough, pretty much any food will be reported to be healthful is highly questionable. The conclusion is based on only two examples, and those examples each were only based on a single study. The information provided is too limited to support such a broad, strong conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice focuses on the first example, the health value of chocolate. The answer choice questions the use of the example because the study was paid for by an interested party—the confectioner’s trade association. However, the olive oil example was not paid for by a biased group. This answer choice only addresses a portion of the flaw in this argument.
Answer choice (B): The argument in the stimulus moves from specific examples (chocolate and olive oil) to a general rule regarding all food. Our conclusion is a general rule. This answer choice describes the opposite argument, one where the conclusion would be a specific example, and the premise would be a general rule. Since this answer choice did not correctly describe the structure of the argument, it is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As described above, the flaw in the argument is that the author attempts to draw too broad of a conclusion. Based solely on two instances, the author attempts to draw a conclusion about nearly all foods. He or she does not claim that the example foods are representative of all other foods. Therefore, since the author’s conclusion is too broad to be supported by the examples in the stimulus, this is the correct answer choice.
Answer choice (D): In this stimulus, the author does not assume that all results of nutritional studies will eventually be reported, but rather, that almost all foods will eventually be studied at deemed to be healthy. This answer choice does not address the key flaw of the argument, that the author bases his conclusion on a very limited sample set.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect as the author does not care if foods are reported to be unhealthy, so long as they are reported to be healthy at least once. Even in the cases of chocolate and olive oil, reports have recorded possible health risks to consuming the food. The author acknowledges the negative reports in the stimulus. His conclusion is that, despite the existence of negative reports, almost all foods will have at least one report showing nutritional value.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer is (C)
This stimulus describes some changes in common wisdom about the nutritional value of two different foods. In both cases, the food initially was determined to be unhealthy. Later, it turned out that the foods had certain health benefits, at least according to one report. It is important to note that the author does not challenge the original health concerns about chocolate and olive oil, but only provides evidence of possible benefits while ignoring the risks. From the two examples given, the author concludes that almost any food will be reported to be healthful.
The author’s conclusion that if you wait long enough, pretty much any food will be reported to be healthful is highly questionable. The conclusion is based on only two examples, and those examples each were only based on a single study. The information provided is too limited to support such a broad, strong conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice focuses on the first example, the health value of chocolate. The answer choice questions the use of the example because the study was paid for by an interested party—the confectioner’s trade association. However, the olive oil example was not paid for by a biased group. This answer choice only addresses a portion of the flaw in this argument.
Answer choice (B): The argument in the stimulus moves from specific examples (chocolate and olive oil) to a general rule regarding all food. Our conclusion is a general rule. This answer choice describes the opposite argument, one where the conclusion would be a specific example, and the premise would be a general rule. Since this answer choice did not correctly describe the structure of the argument, it is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As described above, the flaw in the argument is that the author attempts to draw too broad of a conclusion. Based solely on two instances, the author attempts to draw a conclusion about nearly all foods. He or she does not claim that the example foods are representative of all other foods. Therefore, since the author’s conclusion is too broad to be supported by the examples in the stimulus, this is the correct answer choice.
Answer choice (D): In this stimulus, the author does not assume that all results of nutritional studies will eventually be reported, but rather, that almost all foods will eventually be studied at deemed to be healthy. This answer choice does not address the key flaw of the argument, that the author bases his conclusion on a very limited sample set.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect as the author does not care if foods are reported to be unhealthy, so long as they are reported to be healthy at least once. Even in the cases of chocolate and olive oil, reports have recorded possible health risks to consuming the food. The author acknowledges the negative reports in the stimulus. His conclusion is that, despite the existence of negative reports, almost all foods will have at least one report showing nutritional value.