Self-paced
Support All orchid species that are pollinated solely by insects have features that attract insects. ███ ██████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████
Flawed Argument: Sufficient-Necessary Confusion
The argument concludes that a certain orchid species is pollinated solely by insects. In support, the argument makes a conditional claim: all orchid species solely pollinated by insects have insect-attracting features. The argument then affirms the necessary condition of this claim by saying that the orchid species in question has insect-attracting tendrils.
As we know, however, affirming the necessary condition is an invalid argument form. That's the flaw in this argument: it treats the necessary condition of insect-attracting features as though it were sufficient to guarantee solely insect-based pollination. So our job is to find an answer choice that reflects that flaw.
20.
The argument is flawed because ██
a
makes an unwarranted ██████████ ████ █ ██████████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ███████
The argument doesn't deal with two classes of things with a shared characteristic. (A) doesn't express the flaw of treating a necessary condition as a sufficient condition.
b
assumes without warrant ████ █ ██████████████ ████ █████████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████████ ████ █████████████ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████
The argument treats having insect-attracting features as a characteristic that distinguishes orchids solely pollinated by insects from other orchids. However, the argument doesn't treat this as the only difference between those two classes of orchids.
We know that insect-attracting features are
c
mistakes a characteristic ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ █ ██████████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████
The argument discusses the same class of things throughout: orchids that are solely pollinated by insects. Because the argument never addresses the characteristics of any other class of things, there's no opportunity to mix up different classes' characteristics.
d
treats a characteristic █████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████
The argument states that the class of orchids solely pollinated by insects
(D) is just an unnecessarily complicated way of saying that the argument confuses sufficiency and necessity: it treats a necessary condition as a sufficient condition.
e
makes broad generalizations █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████ █████ █ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████
The argument only deals with one class of things: orchids that are solely pollinated by insects. Because there's no second, unrelated class of things at play, (E) has no opportunity to apply.
While the argument does make a broad generalization about the features of solely insect-pollinated orchids, that generalization is just stated as a fact. It's not supported by a comparison to any other type of thing.