Subscription pricing
I thought that this was an example of a part to whole fallacy. The author concludes that the decrease in revenue is exaggerated because part (parts and service companies) of the industry have succeeded even after admitting that manufacturers' share of the industry's revenue has fallen. Does (B) address this flaw?
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-6-print-and-take-test/
0
1 comments
To me, the best way to describe the flaw in the argument is to think about a pie chart. The conclusion of the argument is about the overall size of the pie. It says the pie has not shrunk. But the evidence it uses to attempt to justify that conclusion exclusively talks about the size of slices of pie. That's where it goes wrong. You can change how you cut up a particular pie in many different ways, but it's not going to impact the actual size of the pie. That's exactly what answer B describes.
I wouldn't describe that as perfectly fitting the part to whole fallacy. To me, such a fallacy would be more like "The claim that the auto industry overall revenue has declined is false. That's because the sales of car engines has increased recently. If the sales of that portion of the industry increases, I believe the entire industry increased too."
This is more about the concept of relativity.