Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. This is the trap answer based on the small sample. However, again, since the argument concludes only that something is "possible," it only needs one example to justify, so the sample can't be too small unless it doesn't exist at all.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Friends/family can frequently tell what each other are thinking/feeling, so telepathy is possible.

Answer Anticipation:
Be careful here! A gut reaction may have you say that the sample here is too small—after all, it's just Taylor's friends and relatives. However, the conclusion is just that something is possible—and possibility only requires a single example to prove. So there's no issue with the sample size here.

So what is the flaw? Taylor uses the ability of friends and family to tell what each other are thinking/feeling to prove telepathy. However, there's another explanation—they just know each other very well and can read body language, behavior cues, etc . . . Ignoring this (at least) equally plausible explanation for the noted phenomenon is a flaw in the argument.

Answer Explanation:
The argument concludes one explanation for a phenomenon—telepathy—when another explanation exists—knowing each other well enough to read each other through non-extrasensory means. This answer highlights that Taylor ignores an equally plausible explanation, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Two takeaways. First, when a conclusion states something is "possible" or "can happen," there only needs to be a single example to establish that. Second, when an argument concludes one explanation for an observed phenomenon, the argument is likely flawed in that it ignores other potential explanations.

Incorrect. While the argument discusses feelings, it doesn't appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion ignores logic or argument and instead plays on the heartstrings—it generally deals with a situation where someone is in bad shape.

Incorrect. The argument does conclude that telepathy is possible "between people with close" ties. However, that doesn't commit Taylor to believing it's impossible for strangers, so this answer doesn't reflect the argument.

Incorrect. The premise here—that family/friends can tell what you're thinking or feeling—could be accepted by those who reject telepathy as an explanation. You could believe that phenomenon is explained by the closeness and ability to read subtle language and body language cues.