Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 1

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Everyone I know voted against a proposal, so most people must have been the same, so the positive outcome of the vote was rigged.

Answer Anticipation:
Accusations of vote rigging are pretty serious, so this author better have some pretty good evidence of it. What does she rely on?

Her friends all voted against the proposal. That's substituting anecdotal evidence of statistical evidence, and so her argument is flawed. It's probable that her friend group is unrepresentative of people in general, and so what is true of them can't be extrapolated to most people.

Answer Explanation:
Relying on anecdotal evidence is one version of a sampling flaw—a person's experiences are limited and unlikely to be representative on any given issue, and a person's friend group is more likely to be similar than different. This answer highlights her reliance on a personal sample, which isn't likely to be representative.

Key Takeaway:
This is a bit of a weird pattern, but when the argument is written in the first-person ("I"), the author frequently relies on anecdotal evidence to reach a general/statistical conclusion.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that the vote was rigged—it uses anecdotal evidence to support that accusation. It's not good evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless, so the argument isn't circular.

Incorrect. While accusations of voter fraud are serious, there's no one mentioned who is arguing in favor of those results, so there's no way to commit an ad hominem attack here.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of how people should have voted, just how they did vote (or supposedly voted).

Incorrect. There's no discussion of what most people believe—just how everyone the author knows voted.