Self-study
K, a research scientist, was accused of having falsified laboratory data. ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████████
Method of Reasoning
The author concludes that the accusation that K falsified data should be dismissed. His reasoning is that, although the data in question have disappeared, data from K’s other experiments have been shown not to have been falsified.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author erroneously assumes that because K did not falsify data in other experiments, she could not have done so in this one. But this is flawed reasoning: she could have been honest in the past yet dishonest here.
16.
Which one of the following ████████ ████████████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
L, an accountant, ███ ███████ ████ ██████ █████████ █████ ████ █ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ █████
(A) concludes that a charge of embezzlement against L should be dismissed. Although the evidence in this case has been destroyed, in other cases evidence shows that he did not embezzle funds. This is the same flaw as the stimulus: just because the defendant was honest in other cases, it doesn’t mean she wasn’t dishonest here.
b
M, a factory ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ █ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████████
There isn’t a flaw in this reasoning, unlike the stimulus. Because a violation has occurred, it makes sense to investigate a suspect. The conclusion here is that an accusation should be considered. The stimulus, by contrast, concludes that an accusation should not be considered.
c
N, a social ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████
There isn’t a flaw in this reasoning, unlike the stimulus. If the other scholar’s work was published after N’s book, N couldn’t have used it while writing her book.
d
O, an auto █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████ █ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ██ █ ██ ███ ███████
There isn’t a flaw in this reasoning, unlike the stimulus. Some circumstantial evidence makes it plausible that O committed a crime. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously concludes that K could not have committed a violation.
e
P, a politician, ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████████ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ████████ █████
There isn’t a flaw in this reasoning, unlike the stimulus. Because different people have different standards, it’s likely that P won’t meet at least some of the standards.