#21 - In a small town, every complaint filed about a plumber

[ashpine17]

so i have this tunnel vision problem where i spot a presumed flaw and when it does not come up in the answer choices i end up trying to make answer choices fit in and it often ends up in me picking the wrong choices. in this case, i did not anticipate the right flaw, but thought perhaps it was true he did get all the complaints but maybe it was like 1 complaint against 1 million happy customers so merely stating that he got every complaint didn't mean anything in context of the happy customers and I picked A because I thought it sounded similar enough? is the flaw i spotted incorrect or is the flaw legit but just doesn't come up in the choices and A just not saying what i am trying to say?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ashpine,

This argument really has more than one flaw.

The one that you identified is certainly one of the flaws and perhaps the first one I'd notice as well. When trying to assess how "good" a plumber is, that would best be captured as a percentage rather than as a raw number. What we'd really want to know is the percentage of Moore's customers who were satisfied with his work. So even if the argument had just thrown out a raw number, such as "Moore received 5 complaints last year," without more information, this number has no context/meaning. Is 5 complaints a year good or bad? Who knows? What's considered standard in the industry?

The problem is that none of the answers, including Answer A, captures this flaw. (For one thing, not filing a complaint is not the same as being a satisfied customer.) If Answer A had said, "The percentage of Moore's customers who were highly satisfied with his work" that would be a possible correct answer.

The second flaw, which is the one that Answer B addresses, is that the argument only tells us the Moore received every plumbing complaint in the town that was filed. Again, without context, such as how many complaints were actually filed and how many other plumbers work in the town, this information is basically meaningless.

[justinmz]

I actually got this question correct but I debated between B and C. C seems to me that it could potentially be correct, since the premise does say that Moore has a "relatively small business" and therefore, perhaps the sample size is too small/unrepresentative and thus could not "warrant the kind of generalization drawn."

Can you please explain why B is preferable over C?

Thank you,
curiosity

While both options B and C may seem plausible, option B is preferable because it directly addresses the logical flaw in the argument. Option B focuses on the potential flaw in Moore's reasoning by pointing out that the sample size might not adequately represent the broader population, which weakens the conclusion. On the other hand, option C speculates about the representativeness of the sample, which is not explicitly mentioned in the argument. Option B directly challenges the basis for Moore's conclusion, making it a stronger critique of the argument. Therefore, in this context, option B is a more suitable explanation for why Moore's conclusion may not be valid.

[EmilyOwens]

I actually got this question correct but I debated between B and C. C seems to me that it could potentially be correct, since the premise does say that Moore has a "relatively small business" and therefore, perhaps the sample size is too small/unrepresentative and thus could not "warrant the kind of generalization drawn."

Can you please explain why B is preferable over C?

Thank you,
curiosity

While both options B and C may seem plausible, option B is preferable because it directly addresses the logical flaw in the argument. Option B focuses on the potential flaw in Moore's reasoning by pointing out that the sample size might not adequately represent the broader population, which weakens the conclusion. On the other hand, option C speculates about the representativeness of the sample, which is not explicitly mentioned in the argument. Option B directly challenges the basis for Moore's conclusion, making it a stronger critique of the argument. Therefore, in this context, option B is a more suitable explanation for why Moore's conclusion may not be valid.

Hi Justin,

This is a great breakdown! Additionally, even if we entertained speculating the sample, answer choice (C) could potentially strengthen the author’s argument. For example, if Moore’s business receives one complaint but is a small enough business to only have two customers, this means Moore would receive complaints from half his customer base! Even just having a few complaints about the business would strengthen the author’s reasoning, as opposed to presenting us with something the author hasn’t considered.

I hope this offers some extra insight!