#20- A study of rabbits in the 1940s convinced many

[brcibake]

I don't see how E is incorrect. To me, assumption is exactly why the argument is flawed
Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

Take another look, brcibake - does the author assume that the study was flawed because of the inability to generalize them to other species? Try the negation technique on that answer - what if the study was flawed for some reason other than the inability to generalize them to other species? Like, what if the flaw in the study was that the authors of the study failed to observe the rabbits at all times when they could have been mating? Or what if they simply made up their data? Or any number of other possible problems?

More importantly, our author never assumes that the study wass flawed - he says the study is flawed! It's been "shown", although he doesn't say how or why or by whom it was shown. That's not an assumption, but a premise, because assumptions are unstated. He doesn't have to say why it was flawed, nor does he say anything to imply that the flaw has anything to do with the ability to generalize to other species. He just says the study has been shown to be flawed - period.

Assumptions are usually flaws, that much is true. Here, though, the assumption is that a lack of evidence for a claim supports the idea that the claim is false. Since a lack of evidence is not proof of anything, ever, that's the better way to describe the flaw here, and that is what makes A the best answer of the five presented.

Check that assumption again, and see what it was that gave you the idea that our author made that assumption. I think you'll find that there's no reason to believe he assumed that, and if so, then that cannot be the flaw.

Keep at it!

[EmilyLSAT22]

Hi, could you please explain why D is incorrect? Thank you.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Emily,

What are you thinking of as the necessary condition, here? That would help me tailor the answer to you a bit more!

[Capetowner]

Wouldn't Answer B be representing a generalization, not a part to whole, as "some" may not include all the parts, which is required for a part to whole flaw?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Capetowner,

The part-to-whole flaw, also known as an error of composition, doesn't always need to include all of the parts, although the flaw can also be used in this way.

Simply inferring that something is true of a whole group based on something being true of a part of that group would still fall under this flaw category.

For example, the argument, "This football team has the best quarterback in the league, so they must be the best team in the league" would be described as a part-to-whole flaw.

The generalization flaw occurs when "a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon."

When discussing groups, the generalization flaw is similar to the part-to-whole flaw, and I suppose you could describe the argument in the example above as generalizing from the quarterback to the entire team, but personally I'd probably describe it as part-to-whole.

In Answer B, we don't necessarily know that "some non mammalian vertebrate species" indicates "one or a few instances" as described in the generalization flaw, but I wouldn't worry too much about those details here. If you want to think of Answer B in terms of the generalization flaw, that seems completely reasonable to me.