- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:00 pm
#35655
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This stimulus is a conditional argument. It can be diagrammed as follows:
Conditional argument: Majority favor proposal (MFP)
Airport
Premise: MFP unlikely
Conclusion: Airport unlikely
There are two issues of note here. First, the argument correctly limits the scope of the conclusion to
the strength of the premise. If a given premise is only unlikely but not impossible, the conclusion
cannot be stronger than unlikely. An inference is only as strong as its weakest link.
Second, the argument confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. MFP is not required for airport;
it only ensures that the airport will be built. But even if a majority of the city’s resident are unlikely
to favor the proposal, another more compelling for building the airport may exist. This is a mistaken
reversal and cannot be used to reach the stated conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. When answering flaw questions that clearly
contain mistaken conditional reasoning, look for terms such as sufficient, necessary, and their
synonyms (needed, ensured, etc.). This answer contains both “sufficient” and “necessary”, which
means it is a clear contender. Now we must ensure that it correctly described the flawed pattern of
reasoning in the stimulus. “A sufficient condition for the airport’s being built” refers to MFP, and the
argument does treat that condition as though it needed to be met or else the airport was unlikely to be
built.
Answer choice (B): The conclusion is not that something must be true, but that something is unlikely
to occur. Also, the argument does not depend on most of Dalton’s residents believing that the airport
will be built, but that most people are unlikely to favor its construction.
Answer choice (C): The argument does reason from the basis that a certain event is unlikely to
occur, but does not conclude that the same event will definitely not occur. For the argument to follow
this pattern of reasoning, the conclusion would have to be something to the effect of, “Since most
residents probably won’t favor the proposal, most residents will not favor the proposal.”
Answer choice (D): Whether or not people living near Dalton would favor the proposal is irrelevant,
since the condition relationship only discusses the majority of Dalton’s residents. The argument does
not need to addresses the reaction of people living near Dalton and is therefore not flawed for failing
to consider it.
Answer choice (E): As always, be careful to pick answers that are both accurate and relevant. It
is accurate that the argument overlooks the possible economy benefit of the airport, but this is not
relevant. Given our premises, the author can draw a perfectly sound conclusion about the likelihood
of the airport being built without referring to any of the pros or cons of the proposal. The author’s
brief reference to perceived noise problems is an attempt to explain the predicted reaction of Dalton’s
residents rather than an accounting of the proposal’s drawbacks.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This stimulus is a conditional argument. It can be diagrammed as follows:
Conditional argument: Majority favor proposal (MFP)
AirportPremise: MFP unlikely
Conclusion: Airport unlikely
There are two issues of note here. First, the argument correctly limits the scope of the conclusion to
the strength of the premise. If a given premise is only unlikely but not impossible, the conclusion
cannot be stronger than unlikely. An inference is only as strong as its weakest link.
Second, the argument confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. MFP is not required for airport;
it only ensures that the airport will be built. But even if a majority of the city’s resident are unlikely
to favor the proposal, another more compelling for building the airport may exist. This is a mistaken
reversal and cannot be used to reach the stated conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. When answering flaw questions that clearly
contain mistaken conditional reasoning, look for terms such as sufficient, necessary, and their
synonyms (needed, ensured, etc.). This answer contains both “sufficient” and “necessary”, which
means it is a clear contender. Now we must ensure that it correctly described the flawed pattern of
reasoning in the stimulus. “A sufficient condition for the airport’s being built” refers to MFP, and the
argument does treat that condition as though it needed to be met or else the airport was unlikely to be
built.
Answer choice (B): The conclusion is not that something must be true, but that something is unlikely
to occur. Also, the argument does not depend on most of Dalton’s residents believing that the airport
will be built, but that most people are unlikely to favor its construction.
Answer choice (C): The argument does reason from the basis that a certain event is unlikely to
occur, but does not conclude that the same event will definitely not occur. For the argument to follow
this pattern of reasoning, the conclusion would have to be something to the effect of, “Since most
residents probably won’t favor the proposal, most residents will not favor the proposal.”
Answer choice (D): Whether or not people living near Dalton would favor the proposal is irrelevant,
since the condition relationship only discusses the majority of Dalton’s residents. The argument does
not need to addresses the reaction of people living near Dalton and is therefore not flawed for failing
to consider it.
Answer choice (E): As always, be careful to pick answers that are both accurate and relevant. It
is accurate that the argument overlooks the possible economy benefit of the airport, but this is not
relevant. Given our premises, the author can draw a perfectly sound conclusion about the likelihood
of the airport being built without referring to any of the pros or cons of the proposal. The author’s
brief reference to perceived noise problems is an attempt to explain the predicted reaction of Dalton’s
residents rather than an accounting of the proposal’s drawbacks.