Quote:
Apple are always Red. John bought a Red fruit. Therefore, it was an Apple.
Which of the following arguments contains reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the above argument?
A. Cheetah are fast creatures. A fast creature ran by. Therefore, it may have been a Cheetah.
B. Crows are not always black. A brown bird was outside the window. Therefore, it may or may not have been a Crow.
C. Except for 2, prime numbers are always odd. The number 13 is odd. Therefore, it is prime.
D. Mark always eats healthy. Few varieties of Salmon are healthy. Therefore, he eats different varieties of Salmon.
E. Gambling is a risky hobby. Tom likes taking risks. Therefore, he likes to gamble.
The right answer here is
C. This is a structure based question, which means the only thing we wanna focus on is how the argument is set up, not whether it makes sense or not.
To do this, it's sometimes easier to break the original argument down to x,y,z. This is because the real world terms are introduced in order to confuse us by making us consider real world validity. So the argument really just is:
X is a Y thing. The thing we observe (Z) is a Y thing. Hence, it was also an X.A - X is a Y. We saw (Z) a Y. Hence, it
may have been X. <-- This is only wrong for the usage of "may" instead of "must".
OUTB - X is not always Y. We saw (Z) a not-Y. Hence, it may or may not have been X. This is obviously incorrect.
OUTC - X is always Y (with an exception). We saw (Z) a Y. Hence, it is X. This is the right reasoning we're looking for.
D - X always does Y. Few Z are Y. Hence, X does some Z. This is super super outlandish.
OUTE - X is a Y. Z likes
doing Y. Hence, Z likes doing X. This is close, but not exactly right. A better answer would have been one that told us
what constitutes gambling (X), not whether X is done or not.
OUTTherefore, C is correct. One interesting thing here. The argument used in C is true. But, it is still flawed reasoning to get there, just as it was in the argument. However, the fact that C was a true statement could potentially have led you down the wrong path. Remember that when it comes to structure based CR questions, truth and validity play second fiddle to simply "what are the elements of the argument".
- Matoo