This question follows a classical style of CR: using "similar" but irrelevant reasoning.ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:
Fact: Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her opinion the used car
John is considering is in good mechanical condition.
Fact: when Emmett asked her opinion of his new haircut
Sarah lied and said she thought it looked good.
Sub-conclusion: it is clear that Sarah cannot be trusted to give an honest opinionMain conclusion:
it is very likely that Sarah also lied in giving her opinion of the mechanical condition of that car.Question:
The argument is flawed by virtue of having committed which one of the following errors of reasoning?
Pre-thinking: is "opinion of car
" relevant to "opinion of hair
" ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:
(A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person.Wrong.
Out of scope. The MAIN
conclusion just says Sarah's opinion about the car is not true. The MAIN
conclusion does not attack Sarah's character.
(B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the futureWrong.
Out of scope. Nothing about past vs. future.
(C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevantCorrect.
Clearly, the opinion about hair is NOT relevant to opinion about car.
Hair and car are not in the same category. You can't use an apple to replace an orange. Evidences must be in the same category to make the comparison valid.
(D) It presents evidence in value-laden terms that presuppose the conclusion for which that evidence is being offered.Wrong
. Out of scope. The evidence used in the argument does not presuppose the conclusion. D talks about circular reasoning, but it's NOT the case here.
(E) It wrongly assumes that because someone is a competent judge of one kind of thing, that person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing.Wrong. SHELL game.
E is a reverse answer
The logic of the argument is: A is NOT
a competent judge of X ==> A is NOT
a competent judge of Y either.
But the logic of E is: A is a competent judge of X ==> A is a competent judge of Y.
Clearly, E is a reverse version of the argument. Hence, E is wrong.
Hope it helps.
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."
Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.