QUESTION TEXT: Political advertisement: Sherwood campaigns…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Sherwood supports higher taxes.
REASONING: Sherwood was on city council when city council raised taxes.
ANALYSIS: This is a silly argument. The political advertisement ignores an obvious possibility: Sherwood could have voted against the tax increases.
This is a part-to-whole flaw. You can be part of something without sharing all of its properties.
___________
- Nonsense. There’s no limited sample. The advertisement was considering the council as a whole.
Example of flaw: Americans are all named Bob. I say this because my Uncle Bob is an American, and he’s named Bob. - This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: Death must be a good thing, because death is inevitable. - This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: If Sherwood wins 100% of the votes, he will be elected. So if Sherwood only wins 95% of the votes, he will lose. - This describes an ad hominem flaw. That didn’t happen.
Example of flaw: Sherwood smells bad. Don’t vote for him. - CORRECT. The “whole” is city council. It voted for taxes. Sherwood is an individual. He might have voted against taxes. The vote might have passed 13-6, for example.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply