#15 - The Scorpio Miser with its special high-efficiency

[Robert Carroll]

kup,

I don't see conditional reasoning or formal logic, so I don't think trying to diagram this is a good use of time.

Robert Carroll

[Vasuarya30]

I don't understand why C is even in contention. If what follows from the book is true, that means that the conclusion's must match in reasoning. More specifically, the stimulus presents causal reasoning (last sentence) and the only answer that was left which could be correct was B. Please help thanks

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Vasuarya,

First, if you haven't done so already, I'd recommend reading the earlier explanations posted, especially the complete question explanation (Post #1), Robert's post (Post #7), and Adam's post (Post #9) as you may find them helpful.

They can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=696&t=9152

The reasoning in this argument isn't really causal. Instead, it deals with the concept of numbers/percentages (specifically numbers in this case). There are many ways that numbers/percentages get misused in logical reasoning questions, especially in Flaw and Parallel Flaw questions. The specific flaw that the argument makes is it concludes that it would take fewer miles to break even if fuel prices fell when in fact it would take more miles to break even based on the facts/numbers given in the argument.

Answer C contains the same flaw. The argument concludes that the Roadmaker is especially advantageous when wages are low, when in fact the Roadmaker would be especially advantageous when wages are high based on the numbers given in the argument.

While the exact wording of the conclusion in Answer C is not identical to the stimulus, the general flaw underlying each argument is the same, and that is what ultimately matters.