Self-study
Support If squirrels eat from a bird feeder, it will not attract many birds. ████████ █████████ ███ ████ █ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ██ █████ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ████ █ ██████████ ██████
Method of Reasoning
As shown below, this stimulus sets up two conditional relationships, each with the same sufficient condition:
If squirrels eat from a bird feeder, the feeder won’t attract many birds.
If squirrels eat from a bird feeder, the feeder doesn’t have a protective cover.
Because bird feeders that squirrels eat from both don’t attract many birds and don’t have a protective cover, the author concludes that any bird feeder without a protective cover doesn’t attract many birds.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, wherein the author draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence. We know that some bird feeders without protective covers don’t attract many birds—that describes any feeder from which squirrels eat. But we don’t know that all bird feeders without protective covers don’t attract many birds! Maybe there are uncovered feeders in areas where squirrels don’t live, and many birds eat from those!
25.
The flawed pattern of reasoning ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
If a tire's ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ██ █ ████ █████ ███ ████████████ █ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██ █ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ████████████
Wrong flaw. This is flawed because the author overlooks the fact that tires could wear out prematurely for reasons other than low pressure! But the argument isn’t structured like the stimulus—it gives us one conditional relationship (if the pressure is too low, the tires wear out prematurely) and one “probably” relationship (if the tires wear out prematurely, it’s probably because the pressure was too low). The stimulus gives us two conditional relationships that share a sufficient condition.
b
If a tire's ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████
As shown below, this sets up two conditional relationships, each with the same sufficient condition:
If tire pressure is too low, tires wear out prematurely.
If tire pressure is too low, the owner has neglected to check the tires.
Because tires with too-low pressure both wear out prematurely and weren’t checked by the owner, the author concludes that any tire the owner doesn’t check wears out prematurely. This is the same argument structure and hasty generalization flaw seen in the stimulus.
c
Tires wear out ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████████
Wrong flaw. This uses facts (tires wear our if owners neglect to check pressure, and owners check pressure if they’re aware of this fact) to support a claim about what “should” happen (owners should be made aware). That’s a big flaw, but it isn’t the same one from the stimulus, where two necessary conditions are erroneously linked in a hasty generalization about their relationship.
d
If a tire's ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████
No flaw. This is a valid argument! If the owner neglects to check the pressure, the pressure will become too low. If the pressure becomes too low, the tire will wear out prematurely. So we can follow the chain of conditional claims to validly conclude that if an owner neglects to check the pressure, the tire will wear out prematurely. Because this is a valid argument and the stimulus is flawed, this can’t be the correct answer.
e
If a tire's ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████ ███████
Wrong flaw. This tells us that there are multiple possible causes of premature tire wear (too-low pressure and frequent gravel road driving). It then concludes that, if one of the causes exists (frequent gravel road driving), then all the damage is done and the other cause is irrelevant. That’s not a valid argument (maybe too-low pressure on gravel roads causes tires to wear out even faster!), but it’s also not structured like the stimulus, where two necessary conditions share a sufficient condition and are erroneously linked on that basis.