Quote:
A worker for a power company trims the branches of trees that overhang power lines as a prevention against damage to the lines anticipated because of the impending stormy season. The worker reasons that there will be no need for her to trim the overhanging branches of a certain tree because the owners of the tree have indicated that they might cut it down anyway.
(general) overhanging trees —> likely cause damage —> need trim
(certain) overhanging tree likely cut —> unlikely to cause damage —> no need to trim
In this stimulus, the author’s reasoning is that the specific tree “might [be] cut” and therefore, she does not need to trim the tree. The worker’s evidence is not invincible. Her premises are indications which she extrapolates as truth to prove her position is accurate. Her own opinion MAY partially support her conclusion that she will not have a cut down a specific tree, but it is not 100% true.
From a more general standpoint, the author’s argument is:
Overhanging trees means complete a task X (trimming tree)
If Event Y (someone else cutting the tree) occurs and leads to the elimination the tree, then Event X should not need to occur.
Which one of the following decisions is based on flawed reasoning that is most similar to the worker’s flawed reasoning?
Quote:
(A) A well inspector has a limited amount of time to inspect the wells of a town. The inspector reasons that the wells should be inspected in the order of most used to least used, because there might not be enough time to inspect them all.
This answer choice uses the “reasons that” wording but the method of the argument is different. In this choice, there is a time restraint to complete a task X (inspect a town’s wells). The inspect believes that because of a time restraint, task X will still occur….just in alternative way (from most to least beneficial). Different from stimulus.
Quote:
(B) All sewage and incoming water pipes in a house must be replaced. The plumber reasons that the cheaper polyvinyl chloride pipes should be used for sewage rather than copper pipes, since the money saved might be used to replace worn fixtures.
Well, this already starts off sounding like a conclusion. The plumber than explains his reasoning by clarifying that materials for sewers should be switched…but honestly, his reasoning is weak.
Quote:
(C) A mechanic must replace the worn brakes on a company’s vans that are used each weekday. The mechanic reasons that since one of the vans is tentatively scheduled to be junked, he will not have to replace its brakes.
Ah, this is pretty similar to our stimulus. A mechanic does Event X (replaces brakes). But since a Event Y (van junked) eliminates the van (item that needs to be fixed), Event X doesn’t need to occur. Correct!
Quote:
(D) A candidate decides to campaign in the areas of the city where the most new votes are concentrated. The candidate reasons that campaigning on other areas is unnecessary because in those areas the candidate’s message is actually liable to alienate voters.
This answer choice demonstrates how Event X (campaigning in other areas) doesn’t need to occur because of how it might alienate voters but the reasoning doesn't match our stimulus.
Quote:
(E) None of the children in a certain kindergarten class will take responsibility for the crayon drawing on the classroom wall. The teacher reasons that it is best to keep all the kindergarten children in during recess in order to be certain to punish the one who did the drawing on the wall
This answer choice provides that since no one will admit to drawing n the wall, recess should be eliminated. It argues that an Event X (prohibiting recess) should be set because of Event Y (no admittances). A cause for the drawings isn't eliminated...nor is this argument from a general to a specific standpoint.
close
20 Feb 2017, 23:16
25%
(medium)
18%
(02:21)
wrong 
