Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 26

Incorrect. A bummer, to be sure, but not the Weaken answer we're looking for. It's true that some businesses appear more ethical from the outside, but are inconsistent in reality. But if we're not relating this back to the equivocation in the stimulus, it doesn't hurt the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
We should patronize businesses that hold themselves to high ethical standards. And the media needs to help us patronize businesses that meet high ethical standards. To that end, the news media should publicize notable ethical acts by businesses, to help us shop there when necessary. Just hearing about a company doing good can motivate someone to try their products or services.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice the difference between "high ethical standards" and "notable ethical act?" One good turn does not stack up to consistently high standards. The right answer will highlight the equivocation in the stimulus in order to attack the conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
There we are. Exactly what we anticipated: it points out the equivocation, by noting that simply not being unethical might be the key to high ethical standards, as opposed to a few isolated, highly ethical acts.

Key Takeaway:
This one's tricky, because it's got the same word used differently. (Another, less common form of equivocation fallacy, alongside the "apples and oranges" type.) A single highly ethical act is equated to the state of being a highly ethical business. Pay attention to key terms being used to mean two different things. Another example: if a stimulus used "value" to refer to cash value and then tried to combine that statement with a premise about moral values, they'd be equivocating.

Incorrect. This could be true, but the stimulus says "high ethical standards." It doesn't say that the businesses in question should each have their own definition of "high!"

Incorrect. This doesn't weaken the argument. Easy or not, the argument says that media should publicize ethical actions. It doesn't say they do!

Incorrect. Also probably true, but doesn't weaken the argument in the stimulus. We're looking for something that highlights equivocation between a single act and high standards. This just adds a whole other consideration in, which doesn't help weaken the stimulus at all.