Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. Lana doesn't accuse Chinh of restating a premise/assumption as his conclusion.

Incorrect. There's no sampling flaw. In fact, neither of them appeals to the actual opinion of consumers to make their point, instead simply discussing whether that opinion should be considered by TV producers.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of causality in either speaker's statements, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Lana, in offering a different analogy that she believes is more appropriate, doesn't question the details of Chinh's analogy. Instead, again, she simply doesn't believe it applies to the situation he applies it to.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
C: Painters don't worry about what the public wants, so TV producers shouldn't, either.

L: But TV is for the public, so TV producers are more similar to CEOs then painters, and so like CEOs they should take public preferences into account.

Answer Anticipation:
Both Chinh and Lana use the same method of argumentation to make their points—both draw analogies between TV producers and others. For Chinh, TV producers are comparable to painters; to Lana, they're more similar to CEOs. In raising an alternative comparison to Chinh's, Lana must believe that his argument is flawed because the comparison he draws isn't as appropriate as another.

Answer Explanation:
Lana says that comparing TV producers to CEOs makes more sense than comparing them to painters, as Chinh does. She thus suggests that his analogy isn't appropriate—it's faulty.

Key Takeaway:
Analogies are just fancy comparisons, and some comparisons are bad. When someone makes an analogy, one way to undermine it is to point out that it isn't comparable in some relevant way, or that another comparison is more appropriate. Any time someone applies an analogy to a situation that isn't comparable in relevant ways, that analogy is faulty.