Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 17

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Opponents: There's too much spending on social programs on theoretical grounds, so it should be cut.

Politician: The main cause of deficit spending is a bloated government with too many bureaucrats and politicians, so social spending shouldn't be cut.

Answer Anticipation:
There are a few things to explore in this argument to see if we can find the flaw.

First, the Politician calls some politicians (presumably including her opponents) self—aggrandizing, which is certainly a personal attack. However, her argument doesn't rely on that personal attack to make her point. The argument she makes isn't that these opponents are self—aggrandizing, so therefore their argument should be dismissed. Her argument is that there are too many bureaucrats and politicians, which is the main cause of the budget deficit, and so therefore social programs shouldn't be cut. Since she doesn't rely on the personal attack to support her conclusion, the argument can't be said to have an ad hominem flaw. That flaw applies only when the attack serves as the basis for dismissing an opinion.

Second, the Politician reaches the polar opposite conclusion of her opponents—they want to cut social spending, and she says that's unwarranted." Whenever the author's main point is the polar opposite of an opposing point, we should consider an absence of evidence flaw. This flaw is present when the author uses a flaw in the opponent's argument to conclude that their argument is false. However, the Politician here brings up her own evidence to support her conclusion—the main cause of deficit spending being something else. In fact, she doesn't address whether social spending is excessive and should be cut at all.

Which brings us to the actual flaw in the argument—the Politician ignores the opposing point. They say that, on theoretical grounds, social spending is excessive, and therefore it should be cut. The Politician, however, addresses a separate argument that the opponents don't make—one that ties the cuts to the budget deficit. Therefore, this is an example of a Straw Man error in reasoning—addressing an easier—to—rebut point than the one made by the opposing point.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes the Straw Man from the stimulus. The opponents's argument is that social spending is too high, so it should be cut. The Politician rebuts an argument that uses the deficit as a justification for cutting social spending.

Key Takeaway:
Attacks on the opposing point contribute to flawed logic only if the argument relies on them to dismiss the opposing view. If an opponent is called a name but their viewpoint is also rebutted with facts/figures/arguments, then there isn't an ad hominem flaw.

Incorrect. While the Politician does refer to self—aggrandizing" politicians, this attack is an aside—it's not key to her logic. An ad hominem flaw such as the one described in this answer is when an argument uses an attack on the person to dismiss their viewpoint. In other words, it would need to take the form, "Those politicians are self—aggrandizing, so they must be wrong." Instead, she relies on the main cause of deficit spending being these politicians to justify not cutting social spending.

Incorrect. This is a tempting answer—the Politician does use a main cause" of deficit spending to justify not cutting in other areas. However, there are two issues with this. First, by calling something the "main" cause of a phenomenon, it's implied that there are other causes. Second, putting one solution forward doesn't preclude others from working. Here, it could be that the Politician agrees that social spending contributes to the deficit, but that the deficit shortfall could be fixed completely through reducing bloat in government, allowing for multiple causes that could be addressed individually to solve a problem.

Incorrect. Another tempting answer! However, the Politician doesn't present the opponents's views as more extreme than they are; she misrepresents the claims as being about a separate topic. This answer would be correct if, for example, the Politician claimed that the opponents wanted to eliminate all social spending, when their argument is that it should be reduced.

Incorrect. It's the opponents who talk about excessive social spending, not the Politician, so failing to make clear what amount counts as excessive is not a flaw in her argument. Additionally, there's no need to establish an exact level, and there's not really a lack of clarity on what excessive spending" means (even if there may be debate on what level constitutes it), so this isn't really a flaw present in even the opponents's argument.