QUESTION TEXT: Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Weingarten is wrong.
REASONING: Weingarten is inconsistent.
ANALYSIS: Being inconsistent doesn’t make you wrong. Weingarten could be right about zoos, even if he holds an inconsistent belief about pets.
Appropos of nothing, I find it very funny that this person’s name means “Wine Garden”. “Wine Garden is wrong on zoos!”
- The argument doesn’t do this. Weingarten may have no pets. The important thing is that Weingarten has an inconsistent belief about pets.
- This didn’t happen. The argument is only discussing Weingarten.
Example of flaw: Weingarten is wrong about zoos. So anyone who argues about zoos is wrong.
- This is a very different flaw.
Example of flaw: Weingarten says we shouldn’t have zoos. That’s monstrous. How can he be in favor of killing all the animals in zoos?
- This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: To be evil, you must cause harm. Frank caused minor harm today, without meaning to. So, Frank is pure evil.
- CORRECT. This is exactly it. Inconsistency makes someone inconsistent – and that’s it. It doesn’t make both of claims wrong. (It merely makes one of claim wrong, but we don’t know which one.)
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions