PrepTest 65, Section 3, Question 26
Because our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, we will have the best team in the city. Moreover, since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship, our club will almost certainly be city champions this year.
Because our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, we will have the best team in the city. Moreover, since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship, our club will almost certainly be city champions this year.
Because our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, we will have the best team in the city. Moreover, since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship, our club will almost certainly be city champions this year.
Because our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, we will have the best team in the city. Moreover, since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship, our club will almost certainly be city champions this year.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
presumes, without presenting relevant evidence, that an entity can be distinguished as the best only on the basis of competition
predicts the success of an entity on the basis of features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity
predicts the outcome of a competition merely on the basis of a comparison between the parties in that competition
presumes, without providing warrant, that if an entity is the best among its competitors, then each individual part of that entity must also be the best
concludes that because an event is the most likely of a set of possible events, that event is more likely to occur than not
Explanations
This passage has some sneakiness to it.
The first sentence reads like a premise and an intermediate conclusion, but in reality, it's just a premise. In other words, we have to accept that the volleyball club is the best team in the city. Then, the author adds another premise: the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the championship. Again, we have to grant this premise. Apparently the author's team has the best chance to win the championship.
They screw up in the conclusion. They claim because their club has the best chance to win the championship, they will almost certainly will win it. Not necessarily. Underdogs win all the time. Look at the last 20 years of March Madness.
It turns out this is a flaw question, so we need the correct answer to be in the argument and to be the issue in the argument.
I'm predicting something like, "assumes that because an event is most likely to occur that it almost definitely going to occur."
Let's see.
No, our author doesn't presume this. In fact, they argue their team is the best because it has the best players. Next!
Nope. This is a trap. If you read the first sentence and wanted to argue "The team with the best players isn't always the best team," I hear you, but we don't actually get to make that argument on this passage. We have to accept it as a premise. This isn't what our author did wrong.
No, this is also a trap. Our author is predicting the outcome of a competition, but it wasn't by comparing X number of teams, it was simply by saying the best team has the highest likelihood to win the championship.
No, the passage simply doesn't do this.
Yep, this is it. Our author concludes that our team is more likely to win the championship than not simply because the best team has the best chance to win. If our chance of success is 10%, and that's still the highest chance to win, we still have a 90% chance to lose. We can't infer success from likelihood of success.
0 Comments