This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (the parts of the car are almost perfectly engineered). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the car itself must be nearly perfectly engineered). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.

No flaw. If each part of the desk is made of metal, then the desk itself must be made of metal! Unlike the stimulus, (B) is a valid argument, because the attribute it names in the parts of the whole (being made of metal) is something that must be true of the whole, as well: you cannot rearrange metal to make it not metal, as you can rearrange simple particles to make them form a complex whole.

This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (each brick in the wall is rectangular). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the wall must be rectangular). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.

This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (each piece of wood in the chair is sturdy). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the chair is sturdy). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.

This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (each sentence in the novel is well constructed). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the novel must be well constructed). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.