Praveen excels at volleyball. Anyone who plays volleyball daily excels at volleyball. Thus, Praveen plays volleyball daily.
The reasoning error in the above argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?
(A)
D’Souza sings every day. Anyone who sings every day is a good singer. Thus,
D’Souza is a good singer.
(B) D’Souza is a jogger. Anyone
who dances is not a jogger. Thus, D’Souza is not a dancer.
(C) Anyone who hikes exercises. D’Souza
does not exercise. Thus, D’Souza does not hike.
(D) Anyone who is a superb gourmet cooks often. D’Souza cooks often. Thus, D’Souza is a superb gourmet.
(E) D’Souza is a sculptor. Anyone who is not a sculptor is a painter. Thus, D’Souza is not a painter.
First, Playing Volleyball daily ----> Excel at Volleyball
does not mean
Excel Volleyball ----> Playing volleyball daily.
It may or may not be so the case, and this is the reasoning error to look out for.
A. SED ----> GS does not mean GS ----> SED
but more problematic situation is the core/structure of the argument. For it to be similar A should have been like
D'Souza is a good singer. Anyone who sings every day is a good singer. Thus, D'Souza sings everyday.
B. Another element i.e. dance is introduced that ruins the whole structure and thus reasoning even if it(reasoning) looks similar.
C. Here the problem is with going against the activity thus deviating from the required structure of original sentence. It could have been D'Souza exercises intermittently or on alternate days or every Sunday's etc. and accordingly the conclusion. This way the choice could have been evaluated.
E. Like B, E also suffers from similar problem - a third element i.e. painter.
Hence POE-wise D is answer.
D. SG ----> cooking often. It does not mean that
Cooking often ----> SG.
It may or may not be so.
D'S cooks often fits as equally good as D'S does not cook often.
HTHs.
Answer D.