The commissioner has announced that Support Judge Khalid, who was on the seven-member panel appointed to resolve the Amlec labor dispute, will have sole responsibility for resolving the Simdon labor dispute. █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████
The argument concludes that Judge Khalid will be a fair and reasonable arbitrator for the Simdon labor dispute. How do we know? Because Judge Khalid was one of seven judges who decided the Amlec labor dispute, and the Amlec decision was fair and reasonable.
This argument assumes that a quality of the whole is also a quality of the individual part. Just because the panel overall was fair and reasonable, the argument takes for granted that a specific member has those qualities. But that's an unreasonable assumption—it's a flawed method of argument.
The correct answer will also contain an argument that assumes that, just because the overall set has a particular quality, a particular member of that set will also have that quality. This is the structure we're looking for:
P1. set overall → quality
P2. memberset
_____
C. member → quality
Which one of the following ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████
Representing the school ██████ ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███████████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ █████
This is a flawed argument, but not in the same way as the stimulus. The flaw in (A) is that we can tell Ms. Barthe is a member of the school board, but we don't know if she's a recently elected member specifically—so we don't know if she's actually on the list.
Alan Caldalf, who █████ █████ ██████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █ █████████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ █ ████ ████ █████████████
This is a flawed argument, but not in the same way as the stimulus. Instead, the flaw here is a sufficient-necessary confusion. Liking children is necessary for being a good pediatrician, but the conclusion acts as though it's sufficient to make someone a good pediatrician.
For (B) to be correct, it would need to mistake the effects of membership in a set. For example, it could say that pediatricians in general like children, so since Mr. Caldalf is a pediatrician, he must also like children. That would better match the flaw in the stimulus.
Jorge Diaz is █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ████████
This is a flawed argument, but not in the same way as the stimulus. Instead, it gets the flaw backwards. Instead of Mr. Diaz's membership in the set being taken to establish his quality as a teacher, his quality as a teacher is taken to establish his membership in the set.
(C) could match the stimulus if Mr. Diaz were already a member of the conducting faculty, and the argument was based on misunderstanding the effects of that membership. It would say that the conducting faculty is overall excellent, and Mr. Diaz is part of that faculty, therefore Mr. Diaz must himself be an excellent teacher.
Ula Borg, who ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ █████
(D) matches the flaw in the stimulus. It establishes a set with an overall quality: Arcande Realty has sold fewer houses than it did last year. We then get a member of the set: Ms. Borg. And (D) concludes that Ms. Borg must possess the same quality that the set has overall: she must also have sold fewer houses.
The members of ███ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ███████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████████ █ ██████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████
This is a flawed argument, but not in the same way as the stimulus. (E) doesn't deal with issues of part v. whole—since the society's decision was unanimous, it's valid to say that Ms. George supports designating the Bank as a landmark. (E)'s flaw is that it arbitrarily switches to discussing a different landmark: the city hall, rather than the Bank.
For (E) to be correct, it would need to incorrectly infer Ms. George's opinion based on a non-unanimous decision of the society. It would say that the society overall supports designating the Bank, so because Ms. George is a member of the society, she must also support the designation.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.