PrepTest 54, Section 3, Question 4
Ray: Cynthia claims that her car's trunk popped open because the car hit a pothole. Yet, she also acknowledged that the trunk in that car had popped open on several other occasions, and that on none of those other occasions had the car hit a pothole. Therefore, Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk's popping open to the car's having hit a pothole.
Ray: Cynthia claims that her car's trunk popped open because the car hit a pothole. Yet, she also acknowledged that the trunk in that car had popped open on several other occasions, and that on none of those other occasions had the car hit a pothole. Therefore, Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk's popping open to the car's having hit a pothole.
Ray: Cynthia claims that her car's trunk popped open because the car hit a pothole. Yet, she also acknowledged that the trunk in that car had popped open on several other occasions, and that on none of those other occasions had the car hit a pothole. Therefore, Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk's popping open to the car's having hit a pothole.
Ray: Cynthia claims that her car's trunk popped open because the car hit a pothole. Yet, she also acknowledged that the trunk in that car had popped open on several other occasions, and that on none of those other occasions had the car hit a pothole. Therefore, Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk's popping open to the car's having hit a pothole.
The reasoning in Ray's argument is most vulnerable to criticism in that the argument
fails to consider the possibility that the trunks of other cars may pop open when those cars hit potholes
fails to consider the possibility that potholes can have negative effects on a car's engine
presumes, without providing justification, that if one event causes another, it cannot also cause a third event
fails to consider the possibility that one type of event can be caused in many different ways
presumes the truth of the claim that it is trying to establish
0 Comments