OA is D, and your reasoning is fantastic!
Conclusion: No E>No C
is not a flawed pattern.
Could anybody clarify that?
Thanks in advance!
You are right. It is not flawed reasoning.
But this reasoning isn't representative of the actual situation.
If the situation were the following:Bad teaching causes bad grades.
No bad grades means not bad teaching.
Then the reasoning would be correct.
But here, the argument says "The school principal insisted
that bad teaching causes student failures. Then he went on to conclude that no failures means no bad teaching."
'Bad teaching causes student failures' is not a premise. So we do not have to assume it to be true. It is just the principal's perspective. The principal's reasoning is flawed because of multiple reasons.
1 - There could be many other reasons for failures too e.g. students do not work hard.
2 - It is possible that the teaching is still bad but the students are putting in more effort on their own or perhaps taking classes with some prep provider or taking some online classes. There can be ten other reasons why failures disappeared.
In essence, we are saying that the cause-effect relation the principal insists on doesn't necessarily hold. That is why his reasoning is flawed.
that helped a lot.