QUESTION TEXT: Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Over or under-inflation of tires won’t hurt their treads.
REASONING: No one has shown that over or under-inflation does harm tire treads.
ANALYSIS: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The fact that we lack proof something is bad doesn’t prove that it’s safe.
Maybe over-inflating tires is actually extremely dangerous. We don’t have any evidence either way.
___________
- This isn’t a circular argument. The premise (no one has shown there is a problem) is different from the conclusion (there is no problem).
- The argument never said that we could never prove whether it’s safe to improperly inflate tires.
- The argument argued that improper inflation doesn’t harm tires.
- CORRECT. Absence of proof can’t prove anything. The author should have said: “Therefore, I have no idea whether improper inflation hurts tires, or doesn’t hurt them.”
- Everyone can figure out what those terms mean: adding not enough air, and adding too much air.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply