- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:49 pm
#71248
Complete Question Explanation
Numbers and Percentages, Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is A.
Wei has owned two cars for over twelve years and never had the transmissions serviced on either one; neither has ever developed a transmission problem. Therefore, Wei concludes, the claim of the automobile expert (that most cars will develop problems unless their transmissions are serviced at least once every three years) is false.
Wei's argument is flawed because he argues that, just because something never happened to him, it doesn't happen—even though the automobile expert specified that only "most" (not "all") cars will face this problem.
The question stem asks us to compare the pattern of flawed reasoning in Wei's argument to one of the following.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The veterinarian claims that MOST cats will develop gum problems without yearly teeth cleanings. The speaker says that must be wrong, because their cat hasn't developed a gum problem. This demonstrates the same flawed reasoning as Wei's argument above.
Answer Choice (B): This is still a flawed argument, but this answer choice asserts that its claim is false because car dealers have another reason to want customers to buy warranties. This is not the same flawed reasoning as Wei's argument.
Answer Choice (C): This answer choice inverts Wei's argument, saying that the official must be wrong because the speaker has had car accidents despite not driving over the speed limit. This flawed argument presumes that the effect (car crash) must have just one singular cause (driving over the speed limit).
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is flawed, but only because we do not know whether the speaker's boots were good or not. This is not the same flawed reasoning as Wei's argument.
Answer Choice (E): This reasoning is not flawed. The speaker makes a presumption that we will "probably" get 20cm of rain this year based on earlier years' rainfall. That makes sense, and does not demonstrate the same reasoning Wei uses.
Numbers and Percentages, Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is A.
Wei has owned two cars for over twelve years and never had the transmissions serviced on either one; neither has ever developed a transmission problem. Therefore, Wei concludes, the claim of the automobile expert (that most cars will develop problems unless their transmissions are serviced at least once every three years) is false.
Wei's argument is flawed because he argues that, just because something never happened to him, it doesn't happen—even though the automobile expert specified that only "most" (not "all") cars will face this problem.
The question stem asks us to compare the pattern of flawed reasoning in Wei's argument to one of the following.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The veterinarian claims that MOST cats will develop gum problems without yearly teeth cleanings. The speaker says that must be wrong, because their cat hasn't developed a gum problem. This demonstrates the same flawed reasoning as Wei's argument above.
Answer Choice (B): This is still a flawed argument, but this answer choice asserts that its claim is false because car dealers have another reason to want customers to buy warranties. This is not the same flawed reasoning as Wei's argument.
Answer Choice (C): This answer choice inverts Wei's argument, saying that the official must be wrong because the speaker has had car accidents despite not driving over the speed limit. This flawed argument presumes that the effect (car crash) must have just one singular cause (driving over the speed limit).
Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is flawed, but only because we do not know whether the speaker's boots were good or not. This is not the same flawed reasoning as Wei's argument.
Answer Choice (E): This reasoning is not flawed. The speaker makes a presumption that we will "probably" get 20cm of rain this year based on earlier years' rainfall. That makes sense, and does not demonstrate the same reasoning Wei uses.