Self-study
Support Had the party's economic theories been sound and had it succeeded in implementing its program, the inflation rate would have lessened considerably. ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████
Method of Reasoning
The argument establishes a conditional relationship with a conjunction in the sufficient condition: If the party’s theories had been sound and it had succeeded in implementing its program, then the inflation rate would have dropped. It then concludes that a specific part of the sufficient condition is absent because the necessary condition is absent.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This argument features bad conditional reasoning. We’re given a conditional statement with a conjunction in the sufficient condition, so the absence of the necessary condition only means that one part of the sufficient condition is missing. We don’t know which part is missing, however, so it’s flawed to claim that the party’s theories were not sound, as it might instead be that they did not succeed in implementing their program.
24.
The flawed reasoning in which ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
If the people ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ █ ████████ ████████ ███████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ █████ █████
No flaw. (A) establishes a conditional relationship with two separate sufficient conditions: If the inhabitants were invaded or the climate changed, then the architecture would have changed. It then validly concludes that the absence of the necessary condition (changes in architecture) means that one of the sufficient conditions is missing (the inhabitants being invaded).
b
Many people fear ████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ████
Wrong flaw. (B) attempts to give us a conditional relationship (if the opposition party cuts wages, then workers will strike), but it only tells us that people think this will happen. As such, no conclusions can be drawn using this statement. The stimulus, meanwhile, makes an invalid conclusion based on a conditional statement with a conjunction in the sufficient condition, so (B) doesn’t match.
c
If the company ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████ █████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ █████████████
(C) establishes a conditional relationship with a conjunction in the sufficient condition: If a company sold its subsidiaries and purchased a new patent, its stock price would have doubled. It then concludes that a specific part of the sufficient condition is absent because the necessary condition is absent. The stimulus also concludes that a specific part of the sufficient condition is absent because the necessary condition is absent, so (C) matches.
d
City residents were ████████ ██ ████ █ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ████ █████ █ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███████
Wrong flaw. (D) establishes a conditional relationship: if the rebels won and the leaders were freed, then residents were expected to show support. It then concludes that the presence of the necessary condition implies the presence of part of the sufficient condition. The stimulus, however, concludes that the absence of the necessary condition leads to the absence of part of the sufficient condition, so (D) doesn’t match.
e
If the television █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████
Wrong flaw. (E) gives us a conditional statement with two separate necessary conditions: if the equipment was worth it, then both the accuracy of forecasts and ratings would have increased. It then concludes that the absence of one of the necessary conditions means that the new equipment is not better than the old equipment. This is different from not being worth the investment, so this conclusion is flawed. The stimulus, however, presents a conditional relationship with two parts to the sufficient condition, so (E) doesn’t match.