Logical reasoning PrepTest 105 · Section 2 · Question 10

Flawed

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Insurance companies: Red cars are in more likely to be in an accident than cars of other colors Author: If true, then we can save lives by banning red cars

As with all Errors in Reasoning questions, we should be reading to identify elements that are commonly involved with flawed logic. But before we get into that, we should note that the conclusion has an important element - it’s qualified. The author bases her conclusion on the claim by the insurance companies being correct - that a greater percentage of red cars are in accidents than any other color. So there’s no flaw associated with supporting that detail - the conclusion is based on it being true. So with that out of the way, do we have any commonly flawed elements? Well, the conclusion claims that making a certain change would have a given effect. When that’s the case, the conclusion is causal, so we should figure out what the author believes is the cause and effect here. The recommended change is banning red cars, so the author must believe that they’re the cause of something. And the effect is saving lives. What mechanism would allow this to save lives? Reducing accidents. So the author’s conclusion is based on the assumption that red cars cause accidents. When an argument has a causal conclusion, it’s generally flawed because it jumps between correlation and causation. So is the premise here a correlation? It is - a “greater percentage” of red cars get into accidents than cars of any other color. Or, in other words, red cars are correlated with accidents. There’s no discussion of this being causal! There could be another cause - say, reckless drivers prefer red cars and also cause more accidents. Since this argument jumps from a correlation to causation, the correct answer should reflect that common error in reasoning.