Self-study
Medical ethicist: Support Assuming there is a reasonable chance for a cure, it is acceptable to offer experimental treatments for a disease to patients who suffer from extreme symptoms of that disease. ████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ █ ███████████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument proceeds by presenting a conditional relationship (if a patient suffers extreme symptoms, then it’s acceptable to offer them experimental treatments). It then concludes that the absence of the sufficient condition (a patient who isn’t suffering extreme symptoms) leads to the absence of the necessary condition (it is not acceptable to offer them experimental treatments).
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficient and necessary conditions, because it concludes that the absence of the sufficient condition leads to the absence of the necessary condition. Just because suffering extreme symptoms is one way to deserve being offered the treatment, doesn’t mean it’s the only way. Perhaps it’s acceptable to offer it to people who sign a waiver, or to those who are also sick with other diseases.
15.
The flawed reasoning in which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████████
a
Even a geological ████████ ████ █ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████████████ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███████████
No flaw. If even an expert can lose money investing in mineral extraction, those with less knowledge shouldn’t always expect to make money. (A) also doesn’t feature a conditional relationship, so it doesn’t match.
b
One is always ██ █ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████████████
Wrong flaw. This takes a conditional statement (if test-driven, then better position to judge) and then brings up the entirely new concept of an automobile being worth its cost in the conclusion. The stimulus, meanwhile, incorrectly reads a conditional statement by concluding that the absence of the sufficient condition leads to the absence of the necessary condition, so (B) doesn’t match.
c
Someone born and ██████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████
(C) proceeds by presenting a conditional relationship: if born and raised in a country, lived abroad, and returned, then exceptionally qualified to judge living in that country. It then invalidly concludes that someone missing the sufficient condition must also be missing the necessary condition. The stimulus also sets up a conditional statement and concludes that missing the sufficient condition leads to missing the necessary condition, so (C) is correct.
d
One can never █████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████
No flaw. If it’s impossible to completely avoid risks, and trying to avoid them all is costly, then it’s fair to conclude that reasonable people will accept some risks. (D) also does not feature a conditional relationship in the premises, so it’s incorrect.
e
Almost any industrial ███████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████
Wrong flaw. (E) tells us that environmental damage is practically unavoidable, which only provides weak support for the conclusion that we shouldn’t take such damage into account. The stimulus, meanwhile, features an incorrect reading of a conditional statement, so (E) doesn’t match.