Flaw in the Reasoning and Benefits vs. Not Benefit

[akalsi]

Hi,

I've encountered a few Flaw in the reasoning questions where the question stem would indicate that a certain action should not be taken or done on account of some negative things involved with that action (either consequences or what needs to be done in order to do those actions), and other than what those negative things are, they don't present much else.

In questions like this, the correct answer seems to be always along the lines of "rejects trying to achieve a goal because of the cost of achieving it, without considering the benefits of achieving it". Would it be safe to assume that in every Flaw in the reasoning questions that presents a stimulus along this line, that an answer choice similar to the one above is most likely going to be correct? I guess what I'm trying to say is, does the author always have to present both sides of the argument in this case? And does this also work in the reverse case as well, when only benefits are presented in the stimulus?

Also, If there is a stimulus that presents an argument similar to that above, but also has, for example, a causal reasoning error, which one would be "most flawed/questionable" in this sense?

I'm just having a hard time trying to wrap my head around this sort of question

Thanks in advance,

- Anoop

(Also, if it helps, I'm referring to questions similar to the one presented in the October 2008 Preptest - Section 1 Question 14)

[Ron Gore]

Hi Anoop,

It is very often the case that the scenario you describe in the stimulus wind up like you describe, because it certainly is a flaw for an argument to fail to discuss an obvious positive associated with an action, but discuss several negatives. If there is no obvious positive to a situation, it may be the case that the situation has no positive. So be careful in making assumptions about how a question will necessarily go.

In terms of multiple flaws in a stimulus, it is possible that a stimulus will have more than one logical flaw, but they won't test on both in competing answer choices.

Please let me know if I can help further.

Thanks!

Ron

[akalsi]

Hi Ron,

So just to make sure I understand this correctly. In a situation like the one I described, it it possible to arrive to that answer choice, but only if there is an obvious positive that can come from what's presented in the stimulus? Would the stimulus have to explicitly say that there are no positive benefits to the situation in order to rule that idea out, or would we have to make an implicit assumption about that in some cases?


Thanks in advance!

- Anoop

[Ron Gore]

Hi Anoop,

If there were no obvious positive implied by the stimulus, then we would have no basis to assume that one should have been considered since we are not permitted to add facts to the stimulus in a Flaw in the Reasoning question.

Ron