QUESTION TEXT: A recent survey showed that 50 percent…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: More people think a politician should resign if indicted than convicted.
REASONING: 50% of people think a politician should resign if indicted. 35% think politicians should resign only if convicted.
ANALYSIS: The argument’s conclusion is surprising because a conviction is worse than an indictment. But the argument has confused a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. It’s quite likely that more than 35% of people think a politician should resign if convicted.
Consider the following responses to the survey question: Should a politician resign if indicted?
Person A: Yes, people should resign if they are indicted and also if they are convicted.
Person B: No, an indictment’s nothing. Politicians should only resign if they are convicted. And maybe not even then…depends on the crime.
The fifty percent who said a politician should resign if indicted probably also think a politician should resign if convicted. Whereas the 35% who said a politician should resign only if convicted seem to be very lenient on official crime.
There may not be any overlap between the two groups. It’s possible that 100% of people think a politician should resign if convicted, but 35% of those people think there’s no other reason to resign.
___________
- It’s fine to base a conclusion on a sample if the sample is representative. We have no reason to believe this survey was unrepresentative.
- CORRECT. See the discussion above.
- Which term is ambiguous? They all seem fairly clear.
- Actually, the argument draws conclusions about two specific beliefs based on questions about two beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with that.
- All of these premises could be true. But they don’t prove the conclusion.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply