PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 20
By Brandon Beaver | Published October 29, 2024
Type: Reasoning
Difficulty:
Explanations
This is an excellent argument. Gamba takes a premise (“the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system”) and deflates it like a balloon. Gamba explains why that premise barely supports the conclusion, and thus concludes that the conclusion was poorly reasoned.
A
Certain views aren’t mentioned.
B
No, Gamba doesn’t say, “don’t ever trust statistical data.” Gamba just says that the way this particular data is used is misleading.
C
Muñoz never claimed that the conclusion is proven.
D
No, it’s well established that “there is citywide opposition” can be disconfirmed.
E
Yeah—awkwardly worded, but that’s what Gamba did. Gamba didn’t claim the conclusion was wrong; Gamba just casted doubt. Gamba did this by showing how the statistical sample the conclusion used for support, the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association vote, was way too small (the opposing votes represented only 1% of the city’s population).
Passage
Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville's population. One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville's residents.
Question 20
Of the following, which one most accurately describes Gamba's strategy of argumentation?
questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote
questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support
attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion
criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle impossible to disconfirm
attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable