The inspector’s reasoning here is not clearly flawed, unlike that of the worker in the stimulus. If not all wells can be inspected, prioritizing the most commonly used ones makes sense. By contrast, the worker in the stimulus fails to consider that an intervention may either never happen or happen too late.

The plumber’s reasoning is not clearly flawed, unlike that of the worker in the stimulus. Saving money is a relevant consideration when replacing the pipes. By contrast, the worker in the stimulus fails to consider that an intervention may either never happen or happen too late.

The mechanic concludes that there is no need to complete a task (replacing the brakes). His reasoning is that an outside force may eliminate the problem (the van may be junked anyway). This has the same flaw as the stimulus: failing to consider that the possible intervention may not occur.

The candidate’s reasoning is not clearly flawed, unlike the worker’s in the stimulus. The areas with more new votes might be more efficient to focus on. By contrast, the worker in the stimulus fails to consider that an intervention may either never happen or happen too late.

This argument is not clearly flawed, unlike the stimulus. We don’t know if collective punishment is a good or bad idea here. By contrast, the worker in the stimulus fails to consider that an intervention may either never happen or happen too late.