Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Free public education is the best form of education there [#permalink]
11 Apr 2004, 17:00
100% (01:50) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Free public education is the best form of education there is. Therefore, we must fight to ensure its continued existence; that is, we must be ready to defend the principle of equality of educational opportunity. Because this principle is we worth defending, it is clear that free public education is better than any other form of education.
Which one of the following illustrates the same weak reasoning as found in the passage?
(A) I love music, and that’s why I listen to it constantly. I have my stereo or radio on every waking minute. Since I play music all the time, I must really love it.
(B) Books are my most valuable possessions. My books are like my friends—each pleases me in different ways. Just as I would give up everything to save my friends, so too with my books.
(C) I would much rather be poor and respected than be rich and despised. To have the respect of others is far more valuable than to have millions of dollars.
(D) I have never been betrayed by any of my friends. They have been true to me through good times and bad. Therefore I will never betray any of my friends.
(E) Because every plant I have ever seen has green leaves, I have concluded that all plants must have green leaves. This looks like a plant but it does not have green leaves, so it cannot be a plant
This is a tough one. I would go with C. Opening sentence is a claim which the author believes to be true. Conclusion is that what the author believes to be true is better than any other thing.
I will go with A. This is a circular argumentative technique.
Hey Anandnk. I hesitated with A on this one but I agree you are definitely right on this one. "best" in first sentence does mean "better than any other" in last sentence, so it is circular reasoning yes.
This question is an example of post hoc fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. Social sciences are succumbed to this pathogen. They simply redescribe the problem and sell it as explanation, for example, intentional psychology.
It is like saying that Opium induces sleep because it has sleep-inducing
properties (Virtus Dormativa as the good doctor put it in Moli├йre's play from which I borrow this example).
Another example from pseudo sciences(social sciences): saying that тАШpatriotismтАЩ causes one to fight for oneтАЩs country. The former *names* the latter and is not an *explanation*. (borrowed from an article, written by a philosopher of science, on current state of social sciences)