Self-study
Support If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, then Frank would already have been indicted. ███ █████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ██████████
Method of Reasoning
The author concludes that Frank is not an embezzler. He supports this statement by saying that if the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, Frank would have been indicted. Since Frank has not been indicted, the author draws their conclusion that he is not an embezzler.
Identify and Describe Flaw
A prosecutor wanting to charge Frank with embezzlement is not the same thing as whether or not Frank committed embezzlement. The author’s premises only dealt with whether or not the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank for embezzlement, but he concludes that Frank is not guilty of the crime. Frank could very well be guilty of embezzlement, and the prosecutor may not want to charge him just yet for a number of reasons. Without support for whether or not Frank actually committed embezzlement, the author’s conclusion about Frank’s innocence is unsupported.
23.
The flawed pattern of reasoning █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
If Rosita knew ████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████ ███████
Wrong flaw. This answer choice displays the cookie-cutter flaw of sufficiency-necessity confusion. The author of the stimulus instead drew a conclusion about a factor for which he provided no support in the premises.
b
If Barry had ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██████
Wrong flaw. This answer choice commits the cookie-cutter flaw of sufficiency-necessity confusion. The author of the stimulus, on the other hand, drew a conclusion about Frank’s innocence despite not providing any support for Frank being innocent in the premises.
c
If Makoto believed ████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███
This answer choice concludes that something didn’t actually happen based on premises about whether someone believes it happened. Just because Makoto doesn’t believe he left the oven on doesn’t mean he actually didn’t, just as the prosecutor not charging Frank with embezzlement does not mean he is innocent.
d
If Tamara believed ███ ███ ███████ █ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████ █ ██████████
Wrong flaw. While this answer choice does equivocate between belief in something vs. that thing actually happening, like the stimulus does, the conditional structure of the answer choice does not match the stimulus. For this to match, Tamara would have had to not come in early.
e
If Lucy believed ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██████
Wrong flaw. This answer choice commits a similar error to the stimulus by equivocating between the belief that something will happen with whether or not it will happen. However, it does not follow the same conditional structure as the stimulus. For this to have matched, we would want this answer choice to say that Lucy did not come into work today, so she will be fired.