Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 1

Incorrect. The conclusion is about what should be done, but the premises are about the flight attendant's mother. Those are distinct, so this argument doesn't feature a Circular Reasoning flaw.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Background - A flight attendant with an insurance policy that kicked in at 9am died at 10am local/7am where the policy was bought
Insurance Company - The policy hadn't kicked in yet
Mother's Representative - The mom is sick and her son was her only support, so pay up!

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has some background information, and then two arguments on that information. We're specifically tasked with identifying a flaw in the Mother's Representative's argument.

The background is that there's a debate over whether an insurance company should have to pay out a claim to a policy holder's mother. The policy kicked in at 9am. Seems straightforward. However, the son died at 10am where he was, but it was 7am where he bought the policy. There's the wrinkle—what time counts? Where the policy holder is, or where the policy was purchased?

The Insurance Company argues for the latter, refusing to pay since the policy didn't kick in yet, according to their view.

The Mother's Representative ignores the counterargument that the claim should follow the holder, and thus it had already kicked in. Instead, he argues that the mom really needs this money—she's sick, and her son was her only source of support.

So instead of making a logical argument based on the facts of the case, he appeals to the needs of the mom—an emotional appeal, instead of a logical one. Let's find an answer reflecting this relatively rare flaw!

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the Inappropriate Appeal to Emotion flaw that we identified. Instead of making an argument about the time zone, based on the language of the contract, the Mother's Representative relies on trying to evoke pity for the ill mother who was solely supported by her son.

Key Takeaway:
This is a rare example of an Inappropriate Appeal to Emotion flaw! Note it so you can see what one looks like during review. In it, instead of addressing an argument, the person making the argument appeals to some type of emotion in supporting their conclusion.

Incorrect. There's absolutely a distinction between family obligations and business obligations, so such a distinction wouldn't be warranted.

Incorrect. There's no attack on a person here—it's not even clear what person the Mother's Representative would attack! If anything, it would be someone at the insurance company denying the claim, but no specific person is singled out. And the insurance company as a whole isn't even attacked—instead, the Representative tries to evoke pity for the mother, not disdain for the company denying the claim.

Incorrect. There's no causality discussed, so this answer is out of scope.