jaituteja wrote:
Juz2play wrote:
Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.
Hi,
For E...
That is what the argument says:
Journalist says: In1994,under old govt. six journalist were imprisoned.
Since 1994, under new govt. 30 journalist were imprisoned.
Politician: In 1994, it was 6/6 case.
Since 1994, it is not 30/30 case.. it could be 30/100.
Hence , under new govt. journalist have advantage.
This is what E talks about. it says that
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group.
some 30 is the some members of the group(100).. and journalist assumes that 30/30 is applied to all members of that group..
To reiterate: Politician replies by Stating that information is regarding some ppl out of the group and does not apply to all members of that group...
Still unclear why E is incorrect...
Experts please help..!!!
Thanks,
Jai
Dear Jai
You read the politician's argument too fast, I guess. Thus, you misunderstood the idea of the politician a bit.
Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists
routinely do
Note: routinely is frequentlyBe careful with the
blue part. What does he mean? The politician challenges the journalist who said more journalist imprisoned, less tolerant the Government was. It means the journalist just focused on the number of journalists imprisoned, but the politician does not agree with that. He maintained that
the number of journalists imprisoned may be THE SAME (6 people), but these journalists criticized the government
MORE FREQUENTLY. --> Thus, there were more cases of journalists imprisoned than in 1994.
Let see E: E is not the main point that the politician wanted to convey. In fact, he may agree that six journalists imprisoned is a total group (100% as you said). He just criticized the assumption of the journalist who concerned about the number rather than the frequency.
Hence, E is not the answer.
Hope it helps.