Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 7

Incorrect. First, the conclusion is about Sherwood, so it would be hard to characterize it as a generalization. Second, it bases that conclusion on the entire voting record of the city council over the last 10 years, which is hardly a limited sample.

Incorrect. It's unclear to what either of the key terms (inevitable, undesirable) of this answer is referring to, so we can rule this out as not reflecting the stimulus.

Incorrect. There's no language suggesting the author is raising a conditional rule, nor is there a conditional assumption, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. This is an interesting ad hominem answer given the stimulus. The Ad does accuse Sherwood of hypocrisy—he's campaigning as wanting to lower taxes, but the record of the council during his tenure is that of raising taxes. However, here, the conclusion of the argument is about whether his campaign is correctly reflecting his record, so that discussion is relevant to the argument and thus this flaw isn't present.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Sherwood served on a council that kept raising taxes, so you shouldn't fall for him campaigning on lowering taxes.

Answer Anticipation:
In Errors in Reasoning questions, there are certain elements that can show up that should get you thinking about a specific flaw. And this argument has a common one—it discusses a group, and a member of that group. The premises are about what the city council has done, and yet the conclusion is about a member of that council—Sherwood. The actions or characteristics of a group don't necessarily reflect those of the members of the group. Here, it's possible that, despite the city council consistently raising taxes, Sherwood consistently voted against them but lost the vote.

Since this argument jumps from premises about a group to a conclusion about an individual member, it commits a whole to part flaw, and the correct answer will reflect this.

Answer Explanation:
The Ad doesn't bring up any of Sherwood's votes, instead relying on the council passing higher taxes as proving that Sherwood voted for higher taxes. It's assuming what is true of the council as a whole is true of the members of that council, which is a flawed jump from the whole to each part, and it reflects the flaw in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an Errors in Reasoning question is discussing a group—a council, team, legislative body, country, company, etc . . . —you should start thinking about a potential part/whole flaw.