Self-study
Because Support our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, Support we will have the best team in the city. █████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ████ █████████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ █████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that our club will almost certainly be city champions this year. This is based on the following:
Premise: Our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city.
Sub-conclusion: We will have the best team in the city.
Premise: The best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the championship.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author commits the part-to-whole fallacy in assuming that because the club has the best volleyplayers, the team will be the best.
The author also assumes that being the team with the best chance of winning the championship implies that the chance is near certainty. This overlooks that the team’s chance of winning could still be very low, even if that chance is better than the chances of each other team.
26.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
presumes, without presenting ████████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ █████████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████████
The author does not assume that the “best” can be determined only based on competition. Notice that the premise says certain players are the “best,” but doesn’t say we had to see them in competition to make this determination.
b
predicts the success ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████
Having the best players on your team is certainly relevant to the quality of the team. Although it doesn’t guarantee that the team will be the best, that doesn’t mean this feature is irrelevant.
c
predicts the outcome ██ █ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████
There’s nothing flawed about predicting an outcome based on comparing the parties in that competition. Although the author reaches his prediction in a flawed way, that doesn’t mean the act of predicting based on a comparison is flawed.
d
presumes, without providing ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████
One of the premises asserts that the club recruited the best players (individual parts of the team). This is a fact we accept as true. So the author doesn’t assume that these players are the best. The author uses this fact to conclude that the team is the best.
e
concludes that because ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ███
(E) captures the author’s assumption that because the team has the best chance of winning, it will almost certainly win. The author overlooks that the team’s chance of winning might still be under 50%, even if that chance is higher than the chance of each other team winning.