QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: Wildlife activists have proposed that the…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t hide cable TV lines underground.
REASONING: Some animals will still get electrocuted even if we hide cable TV lines underground.
ANALYSIS: You may have heard the expression “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. That’s the error the columnist makes.
It sounds like the environmentalists’ proposal is better than what we’re doing now. So we should probably do it. The columnist hasn’t given good evidence. He’s just shown the proposal is not perfect. That’s not good enough. He ought to show that it’s worse than what we’re doing now.
___________
- This is a different flaw. The argument didn’t reverse any sufficient-necessary statements.
Example of flaw: If the plan would kill all the animals, then it would be a bad plan.
This plan doesn’t kill all the animals, so it’s not a bad plan. - CORRECT. A proposal can be useful even if it’s not a perfect solution. For instance, I doubt studying will get you a perfect 180 on the LSAT. But that doesn’t mean studying isn’t useful.
- I can see how you’d think this was the answer. The author did judge based only on one factor.
But the author did not incorrectly exclude other factors. This answer would only apply if there was an additional factor that demanded consideration, or if the author stated, without evidence, that there were no other factors. - This is a different flaw: an ad hominem flaw.
Example of flaw: The environmentalists made a proposal. But they’re lazy hippies, so I’m not going to listen to them. - This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: Plan B would save all the animals, and earn us $10 billion dollars per year.But we shouldn’t do plan B, because plan A already works. Plan A saves 75% of animals.
Leave a Reply