Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 1 · Question 7

Incorrect. While the confectioners trade association might be a questionable source for the claim about chocolate being healthy, there's no note that a similar bias is at play in the olive oil example. Additionally, the argument doesn't rely on these claims being correct—the conclusion is that if you want long enough, foods will be "reported" as healthful, not that they will actually be healthful. Even if the confectioners are wrong, their report still aligns with the conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument does almost the reverse of this—concludes a general rule based on specific cases that are too few to support it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Experts used to say chocolate was unhealthy, but now they say it has health benefits. Same with oily foods, and now olive oil is beneficial. Wait long enough and any food will be reported as healthy!

Answer Anticipation:
That's an exceptionally broad conclusion—"almost any food"—so the stimulus better back it up. What does it use to support such a broad conclusion? Two examples.

That's not nearly enough.

The argument here generalizes from too few examples, and so it's flawed. While sample size is rarely an issue, when the total can be counted on one hand, then you're looking at a flaw. This too-small sample also tends to be more in questions with examples rather than a study/poll/survey.

Let's look for an answer that brings up the overly broad generalization based on two examples.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump from two examples to a statement about "almost all" situations. That's too big of a jump, and so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When the conclusion is a strong generalization, check to see if the premises have enough scope to back it up. Many times, the support will involve too few examples to allow for a general conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't rely on all results from research being reported—it just relies on enough reports coming out to cover almost all foods. As long as there's a report for almost everything people eat, it doesn't matter if other reports are unreported.

Incorrect. It doesn't fail to consider that at all, it just limits itself to reports of healthfulness.