Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Although this bottle is labeled 'vinegar', no fizzing [#permalink]
30 Mar 2004, 09:05
100% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
Although this bottle is labeled 'vinegar', no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from this box labeled 'baking soda.' But when an acidic liquid such as vinegar is added to baking soda the resulting mixture fizzes, so this bottle clearly has been mislabeled.
A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument
(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar
(B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect.
(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term 'fizz┬б'
(D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions
(E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive
If any other acid is present in the bottle it would have fizzed and the author might concluyde that the bottle is correctly named. But it ignores the possibility that the box might have been mis-labled.
The argument says that Any liquid acid when added to baking soda fizzes. So even if it contaiins other liquid acid than vinegar, it should still fizz. the argument says that it did not fizz. So it did not contain any liquid acid at all.. I hope I am correct.
A is wrong because it goes out of scope and is too specific. You should always approach the argument as it is and never use additional information like the one stated. Yes, there is a possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar but then there are several other possibilities we could also consider.
My explanation is little bit different. Why is the author saying that the bottle is mislabled? The author is saying it because the author did not see the fizz. Had there been other acid it would have fizzed right. Since no other method of determining the liquid in the bottle is given the author would conclude that the bottle indeed contained vinegar. From the point of view of the stem there is nothing wrong in what the Author concluded if A were true.
Since no other method of determining the liquid in the bottle is given the author would conclude that the bottle indeed contained vinegar.
Well, because no other method of determining the liquid in the bottle does not mean that such a method does not exist. They only gave us one condition but several other conditions could also exist. If they said something like, "fizzing only occurs when an acidic liquids such as vinegar...", then it would be easier to select A as the flaw in the reasoning.