#10 - Letter to the editor: Recently, the city council

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

The author of this letter to the editor argues that the plan to prohibit loitering would not accomplish the goal of reducing overcrowding. The author concludes that reduction of overcrowding can therefore not really be the plan’s goal. This reasoning is flawed: the letter presumes that the real intent of any plan can be accomplished by that plan.

Answer choice (A): There is no discussion of achievement of secondary goals in the absence of primary goals, so this answer choice cannot be correct.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, and the one which restates our prephrase from the discussion above: the flaw is that the author presumes that something can’t be the goal of a plan unless it’s achievable.

Answer choice (C): There is no source argument here—the author is concerned only with the implausibility of the plan and the question of intent.

Answer choice (D): The author does not make any claims regarding incidental benefits, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice describes a mistaken reversal, which is a reasoning flaw, but not the one found in this stimulus.

[lolaSur]

Hi,

I still don't understand why B is correct. I did not pick B because I thought the answer did not make sense in the stimulus. The answer choice states that "the argument takes for granted that something cannot be the goal of an action performed unless the action will in fact achieve that goal." This answer choice doesn't make sense because it says that

In order or something to be a goal that something will need to achieve that goal
Goal of action Action will be achieved
If not achieve action Cannot be goal of action

But how is this answer a flaw in the stimulus? Just because a goal is not achieved doesn't make it less of a goal.

For my reference (L7 flaw q46-50, q47)

[KelseyWoods]

Hi LolaSur!

To identify flaws in arguments, first identify the conclusion, then identify the premises, then identify why the premises don't fully support that conclusion.

In this stimulus, we have:

Conclusion: Reducing overcrowding cannot be the goal of the ordinance

Premise: The ordinance will not achieve the goal of reducing overcrowding.

So why doesn't that premise equal that conclusion? Exactly as you said: just because the ordinance won't achieve the goal of reducing overcrowding, doesn't mean that reducing overcrowding isn't still the goal of the ordinance.

You diagrammed answer choice (B) correctly and it perfectly describes this flaw. The author states that the ordinance will not achieve the goal of reducing overcrowding and that this is enough to conclude that reducing overcrowding cannot be the goal of the ordinance. The author assumes (or takes for granted) that:

Achieve Action Goal of Action

You are absolutely correct that this assumption the author made doesn't make sense--that's why it's the flaw!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ckk721]

Hi,

I'm wondering why this isn't the case:
"eliminate overcrowding and alleviate pedestrian congestion": 2nd goal
"improving the mall's business.... image": primary goal.

Thus A could be correct.

[evelineliu]

Hi CKK,

For (A), ignored possibilities could be a correct answer to a Flaw question, but the ignored possibility must weaken the argument. Even if the ordinance achieved certain secondary goals, it would not impact the author's argument that eliminating overcrowding and congestion can't be the main goals.

Hope that helps!
Eveline