Self-study
Support Of the citizens who disapprove of the prime minister's overall job performance, most disapprove because of the prime minister's support for increasing the income tax. ████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████████
Method of Reasoning
The author establishes a set relationship between two sets. Most in the first set (those who disapprove of the prime minister) belong to another set (those who disapprove because he supports a tax increase). The author then notes that someone doesn't belong to the second set, and so probably doesn't belong to the first set, either.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s argument is flawed because he tries to contrapose a “most” statement in the way a normal conditional statement would be negated. The author’s premise does not imply that people who are not members of the second set (disapproving of tax increase) are also not members of the first (disapproving of prime minister). Additionally, the author states that most in the first set belong to the second set without elaborating on the opinions of the minority of that first set. Those in the first set, but not in the second set, potentially like Theresa, could have different reasons for disapproving of the prime minister.
25.
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Of the people ███ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██████
This answer choice erroneously contraposes a “most” statement like a normal conditional statement. The author’s premise doesn’t imply that people not in the second set (believing in reduced fire risk) are also not members of the first (supporting limited logging). Also, the author states that most in the first set belong to the second set without elaborating on the opinions of the minority of that first set. Those in the first set, but not in the second set, potentially like Andy, could have different reasons for supporting limited logging.
b
Of the people ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ██ █████ █ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ █ ███ ███████
Wrong flaw. This answer choice confuses its necessary and sufficient conditions. It defines knowing a person expects a population increase as sufficient to know that most of the time, that person also thinks a new school should be built. This answer choice then negates its sufficient condition and draws a conclusion of a negated necessary condition, whereas the stimulus erroneously contraposed its “most” statement and made a mistake in its set logic.
c
Of the people ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████
Wrong flaw. This answer choice confuses its necessary and sufficient conditions. In the premises, it defines knowing a person believes the economy has improved as sufficient to know that most of the time, that person also thinks their own financial situation has improved. This answer choice then negates its sufficient condition and draws a conclusion of a negated necessary condition, whereas the stimulus erroneously contraposed its “most” statement and made a mistake in its set logic.
d
Of the people ███ ██████ ███████ █ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████ █ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████
No flaw. The author defines Donna as someone who fulfills the sufficient condition for their statement that most of the people who oppose funding the study also think the Valley Freeway should be built. Saying that she “probably” fulfills the necessary conclusion in the conclusion is supported because the “most” statement shows that more likely than not, Donna also agrees with funding the freeway.
e
Of the people ███ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █ ████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █ █████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █ ████████ █████████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █ █████
No flaw. The author defines Eduardo as someone who fulfills the sufficient condition for their statement that most of the people that think there will be a blizzard tomorrow think this because they saw the Channel 9 weather report. Saying that he “probably” fulfills the necessary condition in the conclusion is supported because the “most” statement shows that more likely than not, Eduardo has seen the Channel 9 report.