- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#31483
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This argument essentially concludes that publishing airline statistics will not make the public more informed about airline safety because the required reports from the airlines will be less likely to be complete. The author is assuming that incomplete reports will prevent the public from being more informed, but we have no idea how much (or how little) information was available to the public prior to these published reports. What if the public had virtually no information before the new policy was put into effect? If so, then even incomplete information would be better than no information at all. Prephrasing this flaw immediately shows that answer choice (A) is correct.
The argument contains what is known as a "Relativity Flaw." Test makers often play on the distinction between relative states and absolute states within arguments. This distinction is often subtle and can be difficult to spot, since it's not really categorical like a Source Argument, but instead hinges on the nature of comparisons in language.
In this case the conclusion is relative (the public will not be better off in comparison to the past), but the premise is absolute (the statistics are not perfect or complete). The flaw with that? Even though something is not perfect or complete, it still may be "better" than the alternative. In other words, even if the public is not fully informed, they still may be more informed than they were before. And it's the author’s failure to consider this possibility that's the flaw in this argument.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Even though the reports are incomplete, they still may make the public more informed than before. The author mistakenly assumed that an incomplete report could not make the public more informed, which, as outlined above, is the flaw in this argument.
Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is an example of exaggeration. The author never gives any indication that he assumes the public has a right to all information in matters of public safety. Many incorrect answers in Prove Family questions contain exaggerated language. These answers are often incorrect because it is difficult if not impossible to prove the exaggerated statement from the information in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is another example of an exaggeration. The author never presumed that information about airline safety was impossible to find in the absence of government disclosures. Once again, the exaggerated language cannot be supported by the author’s statements in the stimulus, and is therefore incorrect.
Answer Choice (D): The author was concerned with whether the reports were complete, not whether or not they were accurate. An incomplete report could nevertheless be an accurate report. This is an example of a Shell Game Answer. Here, accuracy is very similar to the discussion in the stimulus about how complete the reports were, but ultimately different. Shell Game Answers prey on students who do not read closely and know exactly what was stated in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E): The impact on revenues is not relevant to whether or not these incomplete reports will frustrate the government’s goal of keeping the public informed. The impact on revenues may help decide whether publishing these statistics is a good idea or not, but that would be a very different argument than the one presented in the stimulus.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This argument essentially concludes that publishing airline statistics will not make the public more informed about airline safety because the required reports from the airlines will be less likely to be complete. The author is assuming that incomplete reports will prevent the public from being more informed, but we have no idea how much (or how little) information was available to the public prior to these published reports. What if the public had virtually no information before the new policy was put into effect? If so, then even incomplete information would be better than no information at all. Prephrasing this flaw immediately shows that answer choice (A) is correct.
The argument contains what is known as a "Relativity Flaw." Test makers often play on the distinction between relative states and absolute states within arguments. This distinction is often subtle and can be difficult to spot, since it's not really categorical like a Source Argument, but instead hinges on the nature of comparisons in language.
In this case the conclusion is relative (the public will not be better off in comparison to the past), but the premise is absolute (the statistics are not perfect or complete). The flaw with that? Even though something is not perfect or complete, it still may be "better" than the alternative. In other words, even if the public is not fully informed, they still may be more informed than they were before. And it's the author’s failure to consider this possibility that's the flaw in this argument.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Even though the reports are incomplete, they still may make the public more informed than before. The author mistakenly assumed that an incomplete report could not make the public more informed, which, as outlined above, is the flaw in this argument.
Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is an example of exaggeration. The author never gives any indication that he assumes the public has a right to all information in matters of public safety. Many incorrect answers in Prove Family questions contain exaggerated language. These answers are often incorrect because it is difficult if not impossible to prove the exaggerated statement from the information in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is another example of an exaggeration. The author never presumed that information about airline safety was impossible to find in the absence of government disclosures. Once again, the exaggerated language cannot be supported by the author’s statements in the stimulus, and is therefore incorrect.
Answer Choice (D): The author was concerned with whether the reports were complete, not whether or not they were accurate. An incomplete report could nevertheless be an accurate report. This is an example of a Shell Game Answer. Here, accuracy is very similar to the discussion in the stimulus about how complete the reports were, but ultimately different. Shell Game Answers prey on students who do not read closely and know exactly what was stated in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E): The impact on revenues is not relevant to whether or not these incomplete reports will frustrate the government’s goal of keeping the public informed. The impact on revenues may help decide whether publishing these statistics is a good idea or not, but that would be a very different argument than the one presented in the stimulus.
A win-win for you and us! Thanks in advance!
Briefly, that term isn't a formal one, but it's one we use informally at times (and we'll revise Nikki's replies to make that clearer for other, future readers). Fortunately, it's an error that has been discussed on this Forum, and falls under part-and-whole arguments, as Nikki mentioned. Jon will go into detail on this very shortly, and make sure the concept is crystal clear!