Student X: I’m worried about failing the course. Student Y: Don’t worr

I think answer is "d". As in argument their is surity that I will pass ....not possibility so on that basis we can eliminate choices.

Also in premise we have failure but in conclusion we have " not fail" ...so this type of reasoning is mentioned in option d.

Posted from my mobile device

Student X: I’m worried about failing the course.

Student Y: Don’t worry. As the professor said, any student who fails to submit a term paper will fail the course. So just make sure that you submit a term paper, and you will not fail the course.

Which one of the following exhibits the same logical flaw as that exhibited in student Y’s remark?

(A) Any restaurant that serves paella without saffron is not authentic. So if the restaurant serves paella with turmeric instead of saffron, it is authentic.

(B) Any native fishers who earn their livings by fishing the local rivers and lakes are worth hiring as guides. So a person who is a native fisher is worth hiring as a guide.

(C) Anyone who can consistently bowl over 200 points per game should become a professional bowler. If you can consistently bowl over 200 points per game, you should become a professional bowler.

(D) Any engineer who cannot solve the equation in a reasonable amount of time will not get a license. So if you are an engineer who can solve the equation in a reasonable amount of time, you will get a license.

(E) Any cook who is in a hot kitchen will leave the kitchen. If you are a cook in a kitchen that is hot, you will be forced to leave the kitchen.

D is correct for the reason that engineer might not be able to solve within the stipulated time but if you can then you can get the license.

IMO Answer D.
_________________

No submit --> no pass
Submit --> pass

(A) is of different reasoning
No saffron --> no authentic
No saffron --> authentic

(B) is of different reasoning
All native fishers --> guide
A native Fisher --> guide

(C) is of different reasoning
All players >200 --> bowler
You >200 --> bowler

(D) is CORRECT ANSWER, because it exhibits similar flaw in the reasoning.
No solve --> no license
Solve --> license

(E) is of different reasoning
Any hot kitchen --> leave
A hot kitchen --> leave

FINAL ANSWER IS (D)

Posted from my mobile device

D is the right answer.



The argument of student Y:
Premise: As the professor said, any student who fails to submit a term paper will fail the course.
Conclusion: So just make sure that you submit a term paper, and you will not fail the course.

The following logic diagrams can be formed for the premise and conclusion:
Premise:
Student fails to submit a term paper -----> Student fails the course,
Student did not fail the course (i.e. Student pass the course) ---->Student did not fail to submit a term paper (or student submits a term paper)

Conclusion:
Student submits a term paper -----> Student will not fail the course.

The flaw in Student Y's argument is that he/she mistakenly negates the sufficient condition and the required condition in the conclusion of the argument. So we need another an answer choice that mimics this flaw in the conclusion by mistakenly negating both the sufficient and required conditions in its premise.


Premise:
Serve Paella without Saffron-----> not Authentic
Authentic ----> not serve Paella without Saffron

Conclusion:
Serve Paella with turmeric---->authentic.
The flaw in A is that it wrongly concludes that serving paella with turmeric is the sufficient condition required for a restaurant to be authentic. The flaw in A does not parallel that in Student Y's reasoning.


Premise:
native fisher who earns living by fishing in the local rivers and lakes--->worth hiring as a guide
not worth hiring as a guide---->not native fisher who earns living by fishing in the local rivers and lakes

Conclusion:
native fisher---->worth hiring as a guide.
The flaw in this argument is that the sufficient condition in the premise is reworded neglecting key elements and stated in the conclusion as sufficient for the required condition. This flaw does not mimic that in Student Y's argument.


Premise:
can consistently bowl over 200 points per game ----> become a professional bowler.
not become professional bowler ----> cannot consistently bowl over 200 points per game.

Conclusion:
can consistently bowl over 200 points per game ----> become a professional bowler
The conclusion of this argument follows the logic in the premise provided. Hence this argument does not mimic the error in Student Y's argument.


Premise:
Engineer cannot solve the equation in a reasonable time ---> not get license
get license ----> Engineer can solve the equation in a reasonable time

Conclusion:
Engineer can solve the equation in a reasonable time ----> get the license.
This argument rightly mimics the reasoning in Student Y's argument. The conclusion is drawn by mistakenly negating the sufficient condition and the required condition. This is exactly the same flaw in the argument of student Y, and hence this is our answer.


Premise:
A cook in a hot kitchen ----> leave the kitchen
not leave the kitchen ----> A cook not in a hot kitchen

Conclusion:
A cook in a hot kitchen ----> leave the kitchen
This conclusion is rightly drawn from the premise, and hence this is not an argument flawed in the same manner as the argument made by student Y.

This is a relatively straightforward question that focuses on the classic Necessary/Sufficient logical flaw.

Stem:
Submitting a term paper is a necessary condition not to fail the course, but submitting it alone does not mean that a student will not fail. Submitting a terribly written paper may perhaps lead to the failure to pass the course. In other words, submitting a paper is not a sufficient condition to pass the course.

Once I figured this out and as I went through choices, D jumped out to me.

D:
Even if an engineer solve the equation in a reasonable amount of time, that does not mean that he or she can get a license. She may have to pass another test to become an engineer: for example, an ethics test or a psychological test. A super smart math wizard might not be mentally fit to be an engineer. Simply put, Solving the equation is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one to earn a license.

The statement goes like this

Statement: if A then B. if NOT A then NOT B

a: if A then B. if C then B ----> WRONG
b: if A then B (sufficient condition). if A then B (conclusion from sufficient condition) -----> WRONG
c: if A then B (sufficient condition). if A then B (conclusion from sufficient condition) -----> WRONG
d: if not A then not B. if A then B ==> if A then B. if NOT A then NOT B ------>Correct
e: if A then B (sufficient condition). if A then C -----> WRONG