Self-study
Support An independent audit found no indication of tax avoidance on the part of the firm in the firm's accounts; therefore, Conclusion no such problem exists.
Argument Breakdown
Based on the premise that an audit has not found any sign of tax avoidance in the firm's accounts, the stimulus concludes that there is "no such problem": i.e., the firm does not avoid taxes.
Flawed Argument Pattern
The argument assumes that the audit is correct: i.e., that one instance of not finding any evidence for a certain reality (no sign of tax avoidance) therefore proves that that reality does not exist — the firm does not avoid taxes. Notice that the argument is trying to prove that something doesn't exist, which is very hard to do. It's always possible that the audit overlooked something, or that the firm hid its tax avoidance in ways current auditing methods can't detect.
So this is the flaw pattern we're looking for: a claim that because some phenomenon hasn't been noticed in a given instance, or appears to someone not to exist, that it therefore doesn't exist.
23.
The questionable reasoning in the ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
The plan for ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████
This is a different flaw. It starts with a factual statement about what has been true in the past, not a statement about what someone believes to have been true in the past. On the basis of something not happening in the past, this answer choice concludes that that thing will not happen in the future. This is a flaw, but not the one we are looking for.
b
The overall budget ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █ █████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ █ █████ ███████
This is a part-to-whole flaw: it assumes that because a whole group (all the projects together) has exceeded its total budget by a large amount, at least one individual project must also have exceeded its budget by a large amount, which doesn't have to be true. This is a flaw, but not the one we're looking for.
c
A compilation of ███ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███████
This is tricky. On the surface, it might seem similar to the flawed pattern we're looking for: a statement about one "assessment" followed by a conclusion that's not supported. But there's a subtle but very important difference. This answer choice starts with a statement about a limited subset of a larger group — the best student essays of this year — and then generalizes to a conclusion about a larger population: not only all student essays, but all students.
In other words, this answer choice makes a sampling error: it generalizes from a pattern found in a limited subset to a much larger population. That's not the flaw pattern from the stimulus, where we are only talking about one firm throughout. The error in the stimulus isn't about generalizing from a part to a whole, but about knowledge of a "whole" situation (i.e., the firm's finances): concluding that, because one assessment of that situation has found no evidence of a phenomenon, that phenomenon must not exist.
d
A survey of ███████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ █ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████
This is flawed because there's not a logical connection between the premise (all the schools need some building repair) and the conclusion (all the schools provide substandard education). But this isn't the same flaw pattern as in the stimulus.
e
An examination of ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███████
This is correct. Because one assessment of a situation — the book's index — hasn't found a certain phenomenon (a mention of the critic), the argument concludes that that phenomenon doesn't occur: the book never mentions the critic. This matches the flaw pattern from the stimulus.