It is not logical to infer a secondary effect from a cause which is known only by one specific effect. This is not correct because the inferred effect must necessarily be produced by some other characteristic of the cause than is the observed effect, which already serves entirely to describe the cause.
Which one of the following arguments makes the same logical error as the one described by the author in the passage?
(A) An anonymous socialite donated a million dollars to the orphanage. I would guess that he also volunteers at the cancer institute.
(B) The radiation from the nuclear bomb caused some genetic variations and mutations in the mother, which lead to the birth defect in the child. Therefore, the radioactive material caused the birth defect.
(C) Every uranium atom possesses great power. It is also minuscule and not visible to the naked eye. It must be its highly complex structure that produces this power.
(D) The local bands that play at the farmer’s festival received more funds from the municipality this year than ever before. Clearly this administration is more civic-minded than previous ones.
(E) If I cool water, which is a liquid, it condenses. If I cool hundreds of other liquids like water, they condense. Therefore, if I cool any liquid like water, it will condense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is a tough one..
i'll still give it a shot
logical error in the stem should be something like this..
X is related to y,z where y,z are unrealted
from the question prompt X= CAUSE , Y =INFERRED EFFECT,Z= OBSERVED EFFECT
here Y,Z are produced due to x, however they are different
ans choices:
a)x= y
x= donated million dollars
y= orphanage
no Z no relation therefore eliminate option A
b)x=y and y=z
therefore x=z
not the logical flaw we are looking for , in fact this is not even a flaw
eliminate b
c)
x=y,z
x= uranium
y=minuscule and not visible to the naked eye
z=highly complex structure that produces this power
there is some sort of relationship among x,y,z and y,z are different
keep the ans on hold
d)x and y relationship , z is mentioned( othr administrations) but this is bulit on a realtionship b/w x and y to produce the reasult Z
eliminate the ans
e) x works for y
therefore z ( bigger magnitude ) will also work !
not the logic we are looking for
eliminate E
therefore IMO C