Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that

Beautiful question... Absolutely lovely question for student of syllogism and those who love fallacies
I never liked a question better in CR than a pure fallacy based question.
ANSWER IS D
EXPLAINATION :- This argument commits the fallacy of ambiguity. There are two types of ambiguity fallacy:-

1)Amphiboly:- In amphiboly, the error in reasoning results from wrong interpretation of the sentence.
Example :- Professor Richard is going to deliver a lecture on heart attacks in seminar hall ..( therefore many people must have suffered heart attacks while they are in seminar halls ??).
Here what the argument means is that Prof. Richard is going to deliver a lecture on heart attacks and the venue for the lecture is seminar hall.
But the listener mistakenly think that the the lecture is about "Heart attack in Seminar Hall"

2)Equivocation:- In equivocation, the error in reasoning is caused because one word has more than one meaning and the listener uses the unintended wrong meaning to reach a conclusion
Example:- The words "Obtuse" means "Not transparent". It also means stupid, dim witted, retard.
Obtuse also means a triangle that has angle greater than 90 degree.
If the listener uses the wrong meaning of obtuse then his argument will become wrong.
For example:- Some triangle are obtuse therefore some triangle are stupid.

NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION:- IT COMMITS THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION. THE ARGUMENT SAYS:- "We allot the bulk of our sympathy for those who make a FRACTION of the amount made by a millionaire."

FRACTION has 2 meaning :- \(\frac{numerator}{denominator}\)

The second meaning is a small amount when compared to a bigger amount, a small part of something big.

Rodriguez uses the word FRACTION in mathematical terms and says I only make \(\frac{7}{8}\) of what a millionaire makes per year. So give me sympathy.
It is interesting to note that \(\frac{7}{8}\) of a million is very close to a million ($875,00). This is not a small sum. It is a large sum. Therefore Rodriguez needs no sympathy for the trouble he faced for buying a new "Yatch".

D) He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term.
CORRECT ANSWER IS D


Rodrigo: A number of commentators have recently opined that it is strange that the public should generally show more sympathy for the rich than for the middle class, and have recommended that we allot the bulk of our sympathy for those who make a fraction of the amount made by a millionaire, since those who make millions have enough money to ease most of the real difficulties in life. I agree with these commentators, and will be glad to receive the public’s sympathy for my troubles getting a license for my new yacht, since I only make 7/8 of what a millionaire makes per year.

Which of the following best describes a flaw in Rodrigo’s reasoning?

A) He makes an inappropriate generalization when referring to a group.
B) The commentators he cites have not set a minimum and a maximum fractional value at which one can receive sympathy.
C) He is not a millionaire, so he cannot own a yacht.
D) He illicitly exploits a second incompatible meaning of a term.
E) He accepts a claim based on its source, not its merits.