#14 - Food critic: One of the chief competitors of Chris’s

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Bmas123]

Hi! I knew it was in between B and C because of the change in "good" vs "best", but after that I was stumped between these two answers. Can you explain what both B and C are saying in simpler terms, and what exactly the flaw was? Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Bmas,

Did you mean that you were between Answers B and D (rather than B and C)?

Answer C is describing an error in conditional reasoning (i.e. a Mistaken Reversal). This is not the flaw in the argument. While the argument does state that fresh okra is necessary for the best seafood gumbo, it doesn't then conclude that if a seafood gumbo has fresh okra, then it must be the best seafood gumbo, which would be the Mistaken Reversal described in this answer.

Answer B is describing an error of division, or whole-to-part flaw. An example of this flaw would be one ingredient in the seafood gumbo (such as rice) lacks the quality of being spicy, therefore the seafood gumbo itself is not spicy. Obviously, as long as you add enough spices to the gumbo, the gumbo will be spicy even if not every ingredient was spicy initially. This is not the flaw in this argument. The argument doesn't conclude from a lack of fresh okra that the seafood gumbo is not fresh. (Of course, unlike the example above regarding a non-spicy ingredient, all it would take is one spoiled or rotten ingredient to potentially ruin a dish, so this wouldn't necessarily even be a flaw in the context of fresh/non-fresh ingredients.)

Answer D is the correct answer. It identifies the flaw in the argument which is the change in terms from "best seafood gumbo" in the premise to "good seafood gumbo" in the conclusion. Even if it is true that fresh okra is necessary for the "best seafood gumbo" that doesn't mean that it is also necessary for just "good seafood gumbo." Maybe Chris can still manage to make "good seafood gumbo" even with okra that isn't fresh.

[katnyc]

Hello,
I chose answer choice B can someone please go into detail all the answer choices why they are wrong and what makes the correct one correct? this question and the correct answer completely threw me off and I did not know how to solve it.

Thank you

[Robert Carroll]

katnyc,

Since Jeff above described answer choices (B), (C), and (D), I'll refer you to his explanations for those. Since he explained the correct answer (answer choice (D)), that will also take care of that part of your question.

For the remaining answers:

Answer choice (A) describes the flaw as possible bias. There is no possible bias in the stimulus. The author doesn't even rely on the opinions of the competitor. The author says "if this claim were true," so the author is not even saying the claim is true. The author is just drawing a supposed consequence of the truth of that claim. As the author is not trusting anyone's opinion, possible bias is not a problem with this argument.

Answer choice (E) is not a flaw here because the argument does not think the gumbo will never have fresh okra; it thinks the gumbo won't reliably have it (assuming the competitor is right), and thus customers can't count on good gumbo. The fact that the gumbo may be inconsistently good (something like what the stimulus is saying) is different from saying it's guaranteed to be bad (which is just about what answer choice (E) is claiming the flaw to be). No one is saying the gumbo will be bad, just that it may be inconsistent.

Robert Carroll