Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. This answer is hinting at a Sampling flaw, but read it closely—it essentially says that the argument is flawed because it bases its conclusion on a sample, not an unrepresentative one. Conclusions can be validly based on samples—that's the whole idea behind a poll.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Survey:
(1) 50% - Indicted → Should resign
(2) 35% - Resign → Convicted
Conclusion - More people believe officials should resign if indicted than if convicted

Answer Anticipation:
This is a question that separates those who are careful with conditional logic from those that aren't!

First, the argument starts with a Survey, so we should consider a Sampling flaw, and a Correlation/Causation flaw. The conclusion isn't causal, nor does it rely on a causal assumption, so we can rule the latter out. The sample is noted as being "of people," so there's no indication that it's too small or unrepresentative, so we shouldn't expect this answer, either. If an answer actively brings up a problem with the sample, we should consider it, but there's no provided reason to think that.

Second, the argument talks about percentages, so we should consider a Percent vs. Amount flaw. The conclusion is about an amount ("more people"), but this argument is set up so that that isn't a problem. If we're dealing with the same group (here, "people"), then a larger percent does translate to a larger amount. If there are 100 students, 50% of them is a larger number than 35% of them. Percent vs. Amount flaws require jumping to percents of different groups that we don't know the relative size of.

Finally, there's conditional logic in the argument ("if", "only if", "if"), so we should consider an illegal reversal or negation. And this is where careful reading when conditional logic is involved becomes important! The 50% number is attached to people who believe politicians should resign "if" indicted, which matches up with the conclusion ("if indicted"). However, the 35% is attached to people who believe politicians should resign "only if" convicted—which doesn't match up with the conclusion ("if convicted"). It illegally reverses that connection.

Let's find an answer highlighting this illegal shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the illegal reversal in discussing the belief around resigning and conviction. The premise is about those who believe an elected official should resign only if convicted, whereas the conclusion is about those who believe they should resign if convicted.

Key Takeaway:
Be careful of answers that describe a valid method of reasoning in Errors in Reasoning questions. Basing a conclusion on a representative sample is a valid way of arguing, so answer choice (A) doesn't even describe a flaw!

Incorrect. There's no ambiguity around indicted, convicted, or resigned—the key terms—so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about a specific belief—it's a comparison between groups that hold different beliefs. For this answer to be correct, it'd need to establish two separate beliefs held by the same people, and then conclude that they also believe some implication of that belief. However, that's not the case—people can fail to put two and two together!

Incorrect. There's no contradiction in the premises. Even if the views highlighted showed people believing contradictory things, this wouldn't be the correct answer—people are irrational and can hold contradictory beliefs!