Wrong flaw. We were not provided with any comparison of how much money Monqiue makes vs. how much her housing costs, so to say that most of her salary goes to housing is entirely unsupported—we have no idea what that ratio actually looks like. This is different from the flaw in the stimulus because this lacks the faulty assumption that a rearrangement of parts within a whole will lead to a decrease in the whole.

Wrong flaw. This argument states that single-family homes are usually larger than apartments, but it concludes that Karen’s family would certainly have more space after moving to a single-family home. According to the premise, some single-family homes are smaller than apartments, so we can’t conclude that Karen would definitely have more space. This differs from the flaw in the stimulus because it lacks the faulty assumption that a rearrangement of parts within a whole will lead to a decrease in the whole.

Wrong flaw. There’s no evidence that Ward’s crops fall within the majority of the fields defined in the premise that used to be planted with other plants, but now are planted with corn. Ward might not have replaced his other crops yet, or he might fall into the minority of that group that replaced their other crops with something besides corn. This differs from the flaw in the stimulus because it lacks the faulty assumption that a rearrangement of parts within a whole will lead to a decrease in the whole.

This flaw stems from the assumption that decreased calorie intake at mealtimes will lead to a corresponding decrease in overall calorie intake. The author provided no reason to believe that Javier’s calorie intake would decrease simply by shifting some of the calories he eats during meals to snacks throughout the day, resulting in a constant level of caloric intake, despite Javier changing when he consumes those calories. Without providing any support for this assumption, the author’s conclusion is not supported.

Wrong flaw. The argument never defined what makes up most of the city’s air pollution. If pollution from cars makes up a minority of the air pollution in this city, decreasing that source of pollution by shifting to public transportation would not be able to take away a majority of the total air pollution, as the conclusion suggests. This differs from the flaw in the stimulus because it lacks the faulty assumption that a rearrangement of parts within a whole will lead to a decrease in the whole.