Self-study
In yesterday’s council election Support a majority of voters supported conservative candidates, and Support a majority of voters supported candidates who voted in favor of the antipollution act. ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ████████ █████████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████████████ ████
Argument Breakdown: Quantifiers
The argument concludes that most voters supported conservative candidates who voted for an antipollution act. Why? Because most voters supported conservative candidates, and most voters supported candidates who voted for the antipollution act. The issue is, we know this argument is flawed. So what's the flaw?
The issue is, the argument makes improper use of quantifiers. We're given two "most" claims: most voters supported conservative candidates, and most voters supported antipollution candidates. But the valid conclusion from those claims would be that some voters supported conservative antipollution candidates, not that most voters did.
The issue is, it's entirely possible for conservative antipollution candidates to receive only a minority of support despite the argument's premises being true.
Conservative, voted against antipollution: 40% support
Conservative, voted for antipollution: 20% support
Progressive, voted for antipollution: 40% support
This is why intersecting "most" claims validly support a "some" rather than a "most" conclusion.
16.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Bill claims that ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ███ █████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██████
The issue with (A) is that it takes two premises about what is possible, but draws a conclusion that treats these possibilities as being guaranteed. That's a different flaw from the stimulus.
b
According to Sara, ████ ████████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ████████████
Like the stimulus, (B)'s premises are intersecting "most" claims. And like the stimulus, (B) wrongly draws a "most" conclusion, rather than the "some" conclusion that could be validly supported.
To illustrate this, imagine that 60 percent of children like pies, and 60 percent of children like blueberries. It's possible that as few as 10 percent like both pies and blueberries, making the conclusion that most children like blueberry pies flawed.
c
Mark will go ██ █ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ██ ██ █ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██ █ ███████
(C)'s flaw is that it confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. Not raining is necessary for Mark to go picnicking, and Mark going is likewise necessary for Susan to go. But (C) acts as if each of these is a sufficient condition. That's distinct from the flaw in the stimulus.
d
The majority of █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ███████
The problem with (D) is that it doesn't give enough data to support its conclusion. Which dishes are most frequently ordered is a comparative claim, but (D) doesn't let us compare with other dishes.
To parallel the stimulus, (D) would have to say that most customers order fish and that most customers order stuffed mushrooms independently—not that most customers order both. It would then have to conclude that most customers order both fish and stuffed mushrooms.
e
Most people living ██ ████████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ █████ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████
(E) would be parallel to the stimulus if its conclusion were that most people at Gina's house both cook well and enjoy eating well-cooked meals, or something equivalent. However, (E) makes a jump from discussing people's abilities and preferences to discussing the actual meals being served. That's not the same as the stimulus' quantifier mixup.