- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:34 pm
#84801
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—Formal Logic. The correct answer choice is (B)
The premises of the argument contain a Formal Logic setup:
HD = hot days in Hillview
SUL = smog reaches unsafe levels
WBE = wind blows in from the east
The combination of two “some” statements does not yield
any inferences. Yet, the author draws a conclusion ( SUL
WBE ) on the basis of the
relationship and you must identify the answer that explains why this conclusion is incorrect.
Answer choice (A): There is no proof in the argument that the condition of WBE sometimes
accompanies smog reaching unsafe levels—that is the mistake made by the author. The answer
would be more attractive if it read as follows:
“mistakes a condition (WBE) that sometimes accompanies hot days in Hillview for a
condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog”
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. When two “some” statements are joined, no inference
can be drawn because the group common to both may be large enough that the two sub-elements
do not overlap. For example, let’s say there are 10 hot days in Hillview (HD), 1 day when the smog
reaches unsafe levels (SUL), and 1 day when the wind blows in from the east. Is it necessary that
the 1 day when the smog reaches unsafe levels is the same day that the wind blows in from the east?
No, but the argument concludes that is the case, and that error is described in this answer choice. For
reference purposes, here is the answer choice with each abstract item identified in parentheses after
the reference:
“fails to recognize that one set (HD) might have some members in common with each of two
others (SUL and WBE) even though those two other sets (SUL and WBE) have no members
in common with each other”
Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes the Uncertain Use of a Term, but the argument is
consistent in its use of “unsafe.” Therefore, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): Each premise is plausible regardless of the truth of the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): The argument does not feature causal reasoning. The conclusion clearly states
that the two events happen together, but there is no attempt to say that one caused the other. If you
chose this answer, try to identify the causal activators in the argument—there are none.
Flaw in the Reasoning—Formal Logic. The correct answer choice is (B)
The premises of the argument contain a Formal Logic setup:
HD = hot days in Hillview
SUL = smog reaches unsafe levels
WBE = wind blows in from the east
The combination of two “some” statements does not yield
any inferences. Yet, the author draws a conclusion ( SUL
WBE ) on the basis of therelationship and you must identify the answer that explains why this conclusion is incorrect.
Answer choice (A): There is no proof in the argument that the condition of WBE sometimes
accompanies smog reaching unsafe levels—that is the mistake made by the author. The answer
would be more attractive if it read as follows:
“mistakes a condition (WBE) that sometimes accompanies hot days in Hillview for a
condition that sometimes accompanies unsafe levels of smog”
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. When two “some” statements are joined, no inference
can be drawn because the group common to both may be large enough that the two sub-elements
do not overlap. For example, let’s say there are 10 hot days in Hillview (HD), 1 day when the smog
reaches unsafe levels (SUL), and 1 day when the wind blows in from the east. Is it necessary that
the 1 day when the smog reaches unsafe levels is the same day that the wind blows in from the east?
No, but the argument concludes that is the case, and that error is described in this answer choice. For
reference purposes, here is the answer choice with each abstract item identified in parentheses after
the reference:
“fails to recognize that one set (HD) might have some members in common with each of two
others (SUL and WBE) even though those two other sets (SUL and WBE) have no members
in common with each other”
Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes the Uncertain Use of a Term, but the argument is
consistent in its use of “unsafe.” Therefore, this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): Each premise is plausible regardless of the truth of the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): The argument does not feature causal reasoning. The conclusion clearly states
that the two events happen together, but there is no attempt to say that one caused the other. If you
chose this answer, try to identify the causal activators in the argument—there are none.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
conclusion true.