Support When people experience throbbing in their teeth or gums, they have serious dental problems, and Support if a dental problem is serious, it will be a problem either of tooth decay or of gum disease. ██████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████████
We're looking at a conditional argument, so let's go ahead and convert it into diagram form to make our analysis easier:
P1. throbbing in teeth or throbbing in gums → serious dental problems
P2. serious dental problems → tooth decay or gum disease
P3. Sabina/throbbing in teeth or gums
_____
C. Sabina/tooth decay or gum disease
Now we can see more clearly that the argument improperly denies the sufficient condition in order to deny the necessary condition. This is a cookie-cutter formal logic flaw, and a form of sufficient-necessary confusion. The correct answer will demonstrate the same flaw.
Which one of the following ████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
People who drink █ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███ █████ █ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ ███████
(A) doesn't demonstrate the same flaw as the stimulus, since it doesn't deny the sufficient condition of drinking coffee. The flaw here isn't the use of conditionals; it's the fact that (A) takes folk wisdom for granted, assuming that people who drink coffee really do have jittery nerves.
P1. drink lots of coffee → said to have jittery nerves
P2. jittery nerves → /should practice neonatology or surgery
____
C. drink lots of coffee → /should practice neonatology or surgery
A legally practicing ████████████ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████████ █████████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █ █████████████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████
(B) isn't parallel to the stimulus, because it's a valid argument with no flaw at all. (B) sets up two necessary conditions to legally practice psychiatry. Since Emmett doesn't meet one of the necessary conditions, it's valid to conclude that he cannot legally practice psychiatry.
P1. legally practicing psychiatrist → medical degree AND psychiatric training
P2. Emmett/psychiatric training
_____
C. Emmettpracticing as psychiatrist → /legal
Someone with severe █████ ██████████ ███ █ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████ █ █████ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████
(C) doesn't proceed by denying the sufficient condition, so it's not a match with the stimulus. Instead, there's a different logical flaw: (C) only partially denies the necessary condition, making its denial of the sufficient condition invalid. It doesn't account for the possibility that Barton has an allergy.
P1. severe nasal congestion → sinus infection OR allergy
_____
C. Barton/sinus infection —probably→ Barton/severe nasal congestion
If a person ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ █ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████████ █ ██████ ██ █████████
Like the stimulus, (D) denies the sufficient condition in order to invalidly deny the necessary condition, making this the parallel argument. (D) never says that an interest in physics or chemistry is the only thing that makes someone wise to consider a medical career. So denying that Yolanda holds those interests doesn't legitimately eliminate the possibility that she should consider medicine.
P1. interested in physics or chemistry → wise to consider medicine
P2. Yolanda/interested in physics or chemistry
_____
C. Yolanda/wise to consider medicine
Someone who is ███████ ██ ███████████████ ███ ██ ███████████ █████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ████████ ███ ███████
(E) doesn't deny the sufficient condition, so isn't parallel to the stimulus. There's a different flaw at work here: (E) makes an unwarranted assumption that training is necessary to ever correctly diagnose an eye problem.
P1. training in diagnosing eye defects → ophthalmologist or optometrist
P2. Kimdiagnosed an eye defect
_____
C. Kimophthalmologist or optometrist
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic