QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Superheated plasma with failed electrical resistance is never a factor in causing ball lightning.
REASONING: Every time the professor saw ball lightening, it was not caused by superheated plasma.
ANALYSIS: The professor’s reasoning is not good. He generalizes from his own experience and presumes that all ball lightning is the same.
It is like saying: “Every swan I have seen is white, therefore all swans are white…” Google “black swan bird” to see why this is faulty.*
However, we could save the professor’s reasoning if we presume that all ball lightning has the same cause.
___________
- This weakens the argument, if anything. We’re trying to prove that it is a cause, a cause of ball lightning at the least.
- This shows that his testimony is more likely to be accurate, but it doesn’t prove his conclusion.
- This weakens his argument, as he’s trying to say that the causes he observed are the only causes.
- This doesn’t allow him to connect his observations to the conclusion that superheated plasma is never a cause.
- CORRECT. If they all have the same cause, that means his observations are enough to rule out superheated plasma in all cases.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply