- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:41 am
#26458
Complete Question Explanation
Question #4: Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A).
The Connorly Report slams Ocksenfrey’s repackaged meals, calling them “devoid of nutritional value,” but there are reasons to believe the report may have been biased: after all, it was commissioned by Ocksenfrey’s largest corporate rival. On the basis of this apparent bias, the consumer concludes that Ocksenfrey’s repackaged meals really are nutritious.
Because this is a Flaw question, it is important to examine closely the relationship between premises and conclusion in order to understand the logical flaw before proceeding to the answer choices. At first glance, the conclusion seems somewhat reasonable. After all, the consumer has a valid reason for questioning the reliability of the report: biases can distort any argument and make any conclusion we reach less reliable. However, the introduction of evidence against a position only weakens the position; it does not necessarily prove the position false. By concluding that Ocksenfrey’s meals are nutritious, the consumer essentially argues that the report’s conclusion is false. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. It’s still possible that Ocksenfrey’s meals are complete crap, even if the report criticizing them is not completely objective.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This is the correct answer, as it correctly points out that undermining a conclusion is not the same thing as proving it wrong. Note that there are multiple ways to describe the same error in the use of evidence. Compare the following examples, all of which describe to the same error:
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes a hasty Overgeneralization. There is no evidence of such an error here, because both the premise and the conclusion are about the same set of products: Ocksenfrey’s repackaged meals.
Answer choice (C): Just because Ocksenfrey is just as motivated to trash Danto has no bearing on the conclusion here: the author does not assume that Ocksenfrey would abstain from doing what Danto apparently did.
Answer choice (D): The author is under no obligation to show that Ocksenfrey’s prepackaged meals are superior to Danto’s. The conclusion is an absolute statement—whether Ocksenfrey’s meals are nutritious—not a comparative one. No comparison to Danto’s meals is suggested or implied.
Answer choice (E): The author makes absolutely no assumptions about whether Danto would approve of a report that is critical of its own products. This answer choice fails the Fact Test and is incorrect.
Question #4: Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A).
The Connorly Report slams Ocksenfrey’s repackaged meals, calling them “devoid of nutritional value,” but there are reasons to believe the report may have been biased: after all, it was commissioned by Ocksenfrey’s largest corporate rival. On the basis of this apparent bias, the consumer concludes that Ocksenfrey’s repackaged meals really are nutritious.
Because this is a Flaw question, it is important to examine closely the relationship between premises and conclusion in order to understand the logical flaw before proceeding to the answer choices. At first glance, the conclusion seems somewhat reasonable. After all, the consumer has a valid reason for questioning the reliability of the report: biases can distort any argument and make any conclusion we reach less reliable. However, the introduction of evidence against a position only weakens the position; it does not necessarily prove the position false. By concluding that Ocksenfrey’s meals are nutritious, the consumer essentially argues that the report’s conclusion is false. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. It’s still possible that Ocksenfrey’s meals are complete crap, even if the report criticizing them is not completely objective.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This is the correct answer, as it correctly points out that undermining a conclusion is not the same thing as proving it wrong. Note that there are multiple ways to describe the same error in the use of evidence. Compare the following examples, all of which describe to the same error:
- The author fails to consider the possibility that a biased report can still be factually accurate.
The author confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false.
The author takes for granted that just because a report is apparently biased, its conclusion is necessarily false.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes a hasty Overgeneralization. There is no evidence of such an error here, because both the premise and the conclusion are about the same set of products: Ocksenfrey’s repackaged meals.
Answer choice (C): Just because Ocksenfrey is just as motivated to trash Danto has no bearing on the conclusion here: the author does not assume that Ocksenfrey would abstain from doing what Danto apparently did.
Answer choice (D): The author is under no obligation to show that Ocksenfrey’s prepackaged meals are superior to Danto’s. The conclusion is an absolute statement—whether Ocksenfrey’s meals are nutritious—not a comparative one. No comparison to Danto’s meals is suggested or implied.
Answer choice (E): The author makes absolutely no assumptions about whether Danto would approve of a report that is critical of its own products. This answer choice fails the Fact Test and is incorrect.