PrepTest 40, Section 2, Question 20
Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car with twice the fuel efficiency of a normal car, and it has been shown that we can produce a car that meets safety standards for side-impact crashes. So we can make a car that does both.
Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car with twice the fuel efficiency of a normal car, and it has been shown that we can produce a car that meets safety standards for side-impact crashes. So we can make a car that does both.
Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car with twice the fuel efficiency of a normal car, and it has been shown that we can produce a car that meets safety standards for side-impact crashes. So we can make a car that does both.
Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car with twice the fuel efficiency of a normal car, and it has been shown that we can produce a car that meets safety standards for side-impact crashes. So we can make a car that does both.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
Since there is no dishwasher currently available that uses energy efficiently and there is no dishwasher currently available that effectively cleans pans, no dishwasher currently available is well engineered. For, to be well engineered, a dishwasher must use energy efficiently and clean pans effectively.
Kameko might catch a cold this winter and she might go outside without a hat this winter. Therefore, it is possible that Kameko will catch a cold because she goes outside without a hat this winter.
Susan says that it is cold outside, and Nathan says that it is snowing; therefore, it is both cold and snowing outside.
It is possible to write a best-selling novel and it is possible to write one that appeals to the critics. Therefore, an author could write a critically acclaimed novel that gains a large readership.
There are machines that brew coffee and there are machines that toast bread. And it is possible to make a machine that does both. So there will someday be a machine that does both.
Explanations
The argument claims that A is possible, and B is possible, therefore A+B must be possible. Not so.
Here's an example that points out the logical absurdity of this argument:
We can produce a pesticide that kills mites. We can produce a pesticide that kills spiders. So we can definitely produce a pesticide that kills them both. Right? Not necessarily. There may be something unique to these separate characteristics of certain pesticides that disqualify them from sharing the other characteristic.
It turns out to be a Parallel Flaw question, so I need an answer choice that brings up two characteristics one thing can share, only to conclude that it's definitely possible to make a version of that thing that shares them.
No way. We aren't qualifying something as good or bad in the original argument. Next.
Nah. This brings up two characteristics shared by Kameko, but then concludes something's possible without alluding to any kind of causal (or even correlative) relationship.
No. Trap answer. Susan specifies a fact: it's cold. Nathan specifies another: it's snowing. Therefore it's both cold and snowing? Not necessarily, but this is a different flaw. This infers something from sources we don't know are correct, even independently. It could be neither cold nor snowing.
Bingo. It's possible to write a best-selling novel (matches fuel efficiency in the passage). It's also possible to write a novel with critical appeal (matches side-impact crashes). Therefore, we can definitely write a novel that does both. Nope! It may be that a best-seller never has critical appeal, or vice versa. This is a spot on parallel flaw.
Nope. This was good up until the last sentence, which is actually this answer choice's conclusion. It makes a different conclusion, so it can't be the same flaw.
0 Comments