Self-study
Economist: Support Countries with an uneducated population are destined to be weak economically and politically, whereas Support those with an educated population have governments that display a serious financial commitment to public education. ██ ███ ██████ ████ █ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument presents a conditional relationship (if you’re a country with an uneducated population, you’re destined to be weak economically and politically), presents another conditional relationship (if you’re a country with an educated population, your government displays a serious financial commitment to public education) which links to the previous conditional relationship, and draws a conclusion (any nation with a government that has made such a commitment will avoid economic and political weakness).
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter confusing necessary and sufficient conditions flaw. The argument confirms a necessary condition (public education commitment) of a sufficient condition (not destined to be weak economically and politically) and then erroneously infers the sufficient condition (not destined to be weak economically and politically). Confirming the necessary condition in a relationship tells us nothing about the sufficient condition.
26.
The pattern of flawed reasoning ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████
a
Animal species with █ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ████████ ███ █ ███████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████
Wrong flaw. (A) errs because it treats a possibility like it’s a certainty. (A) says changes in the climate can remove the traditional food supply but then says that if the climate suddenly changes animal species with more narrow diets will have more difficulty surviving than those with broader diets. However, the traditional food supply being removed is only possible if the climate suddenly changes, not certain. The stimulus, meanwhile, doesn’t deal with possibility and certainty.
b
People incapable of ███████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████
The argument presents a conditional relationship (if you’re incapable of empathy, you’re not a good candidate for public office), presents another conditional relationship (if you have the capacity for empathy, you’re able to manipulate others easily) which links to the previous conditional relationship, and draws a conclusion (people who can manipulate others are good candidates for public office). This commits the same confusing necessary and sufficient conditions flaw as the stimulus, as confirming the necessary condition that you can manipulate others doesn’t trigger the sufficient condition that you’re a good candidate for public office.
c
People who cannot ████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███████
Wrong flaw. (C) errs because it incorrectly takes a contrapositive. (C) says that if you’re a person who can’t give orders, you don’t understand the personalities of the people you gave the orders to. Then, it concludes that those who can give orders (the sufficient condition) are those who understand the personalities of the people to whom they give orders (the necessary condition). To be a valid argument, the conclusion’s sufficient condition should be necessary and the necessary should be sufficient. The stimulus, meanwhile, doesn’t incorrectly take a contrapositive.
d
Poets who create ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████
Wrong flaw. (D) presents a “most” statement (poets who haven’t studied traditional poetry are the most likely to create something shockingly inventive) and another “most” statement (poetry that is shockingly inventive is rarely fine poetry), then tries to move to a conditional conclusion (poets who create poetry of high quality are those who have studied traditional poetry), which you can’t do. The stimulus, meanwhile, doesn’t present “most” statements.
e
People who dislike ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████
Wrong flaw. (E) compares a subset (people who dislike exercise) to a set (those who dislike activity generally) and then erroneously introduces a new set in its conclusion (people who like to eat but dislike exercise). The stimulus, on the other hand, doesn’t erroneously introduce new concepts in its conclusion.