finder_003 wrote:
Very few software engineers have left MicroFirm Corporation to seek employment elsewhere. Thus, unless CompTech Corporation increases the salaries of its software engineers to the same level as those of MicroFirm's, these CompTech employees are likely to leave CompTech for another employer.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following arguments?
a. Robert does not gamble, and he has never been penniless. Therefore, if Gina refrains from gambling she will also avoid being penniless.
b. If Dan throws a baseball directly at the window, the window pane will surely break. The window pane is not broken, so Dan has not thrown a baseball directly at it.
c. If a piano sits in a humid room the piano will need tuning within a week. This piano needs tuning; therefore, it must have sat in a humid room for at least a week.
d. Diligent practice results in perfection. Thus, one must practice diligently in order to achieve perfection.
e. More expensive cars are stolen than inexpensive cars. Accordingly, owners of expensive cars should carry auto theft insurance, whereas owners of inexpensive cars should not.
I found this question tough. Is there a known strategy for this sort of question
This is quite challenging, but the answer appears to be D.
We could paraphrase the passage as follows:
Microfirm's high salaries -> employees don't seek work elsewhere.
Therefore, without high salaries, employees will seek work elsewhere.
This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Just because you know
a -> b, it doesn't follow that (not a) -> (not b).
D follows the same pattern. D says that practicing leads to perfection, so not practicing does not lead to perfection. This is denying the antecedent.
A is a hasty generalization. It would be correct if the passage concluded:
Employees at CompTech will not leave their jobs if CompTech raises their salaries.
B is actually good reasoning. It's known as modus tollens: if a -> b implies (not b) -> (not a). Think about it: if Danny throwing the ball means the window breaks, then if the window's not broken, Danny didn't throw the ball.
C affirms the consequent. It says that a -> b, therefore b -> a. It would be correct if the passage concluded:
Employees at CompTech don't leave either, so they must be paid as much as MicroFirm employees.
And no one seems tempted by E, which is too strong, but not unreasonable.