The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips.

Very interesting question. I love it.



They may be tall compared to other tulips but not compared to other plants. Problem is the reference frames.

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.
Black is not relative.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.
No change of reference frame.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.
Oh yeah we got our answer right here. So similar. The gorillas may be small compared to other gorillas, but they may not be small compare to other primates.

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.
Again, no change of reference frame.

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.
No change of reference frame.

(C)

I got C

Here is my reason. A tall Tulip is not necessarily a tall plant (A tree >> Taller than Tulip), just like a small gorilla is not necessarily a small primate (small Gorilla>> than large monkey)

Good Question and Options are tricky as well ..

Option A is sitting there on the top to be picked up on the first read itself (you get a feeling that this is it - the answer ), but clsoe inspection will tell that C uses the same reasoning (word by word)

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants.

Which one of the following exhibits faulty reasoning most similar to the faulty reasoning in the argument above?

(A) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the show were black.

(B) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.

(C) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates.

(D) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus none of the fruit in the kitchen was ripe.

(E) All the grand pianos here are large. All the grand pianos here are heavy. Thus everything large is heavy.


tall tulips is a type of tulips and this does not mean that the tulips were tall(height)
tall tulips are also small when young, so the reasoning is faulty for that reason.

A.its specifically given that the dogs were black so all dogs has to be black(no error of reasoning)
B.reverse logic
C.Correct similarity in the reasoning and wrong for the right reason :P
D.specifically given not ripe(its not a quality its a specification or a state)
E.no error of reasoning, same as in D.

C is correct answer.

This one almost jumps at you (gorilla pun)

All tulips tall => Does not mean that tulips are tall plants in general
All Gorillas small => Does not make Gorillas small primates (Have you seen gorillas?)

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Chris
_________________

How do you determine if all small gorillas are small primates?

You cannot. That’s the flaw. & therefore C is the correct answer!

Posted from my mobile device

Very nice and subtle question.
The flaw in the argument is that the author concludes that tall tulips are tall plants. This might not be the case, as a tall tulip could still be a very small plant.

C perfectly is perfectly parallel with this flaw. C states that all the primates in the zoo were gorillas, all the gorillas were small gorillas, therefore all the primates in the zoo were small primates.
A small gorilla might still be very large relative to other primates, just as a tall tulip might be very short relative to other plants.