Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 4 · Question 3

Incorrect. The argument doesn't draw a conclusion about what ought to be the case—it's about what people don't want to be the case.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Philanthropists wouldn't want nonprofits to be as inefficient as Byworks Corporation, so they don't want them to be as inefficient as private business.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is about the entire for-profit sector, whereas the premise used to establish it is about a single for-profit entity—Byworks Corporation. Whether you view this as a sampling flaw—maybe Byworks is unrepresentative—or a part to whole flaw—saying that the for-profit sector has all the characteristics of one of its members, you're getting at the same flaw, so let's head to the answer choices to see how the correct one is phrased.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the part to whole flaw. The premise establishes that something is true of one for-profit company, and then it treats it as if that establishes it as true for the entire for-profit sector.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument jumps between one member of a group and the group as a whole, check to see if it's assuming what is true of the member is true of the group. That's a classic error in reasoning—a part to whole jump—and it's likely to be featured in the correct answer.

Incorrect. This ad hominem attack isn't present in the stimulus—the Letter never attacks the Editor personally, instead relying on what it believes to be an effective counterexample.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't commit an absence of evidence flaw—it brings up Byworks to address the opposing view, not a flaw in the opposing view's argument.

Incorrect. This is a weird cause to effect answer. It's not really describing a correlation/causation flaw—more some weird mash-up of a part to whole and causation flaw. In any case, it's wrong because the argument doesn't discuss causality.