Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 2 · Question 13

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
After 1973, oil company and oil country money went up. So the oil crisis must have been due to collusion instead of a real shortage of oil.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument notes a phenomenon—the oil crisis—and then suggests one reason for it over another—collusion rather than an oil shortage. There are two potential avenues the answer could take.

First, the answer might deal with the alternative explanations. Maybe it'll provide evidence that the shortage was the real cause, or that the collusion wasn't. Second, the answer might deal with the causation, suggesting that there is an alternative cause.

Note that these two avenues are really two ways of saying the same thing—when an argument concludes causation based on a mere correlation, the argument is flawed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the mistaken causality. It brings up another possibility—that the shortage caused the crisis, but the oil companies/countries took advantage of it. Just because the profits went up doesn't mean that collusion was a cause.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that bring up causality are generally going to require you to think about alternative causes that would have the same impact as the assumed cause. In this case, the correct answer doesn't bring up an alternative, just suggests that they exist, which is enough!

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that no one else benefited. It assumes that those who did brought about the change. If other people also benefited, it doesn't hurt an argument that these two groups were the culprits.

Incorrect. While the argument does mention profits of oil companies and incomes of oil-producing companies, it doesn't rely on any distinction there to make its point, so there's no error in an ambiguous use of the word. If it has its common meaning, the argument still works. This answer is more likely to be correct when the argument uses the word in question twice with different meanings.

Incorrect. There was no need for a surplus before 1973 for there to be collusion. The oil companies and countries could have been perfectly meeting demand, or even a little short of demand, and it wouldn't affect the argument.

Incorrect. The events in question don't happen simultaneously—the crisis is from 1973, and the profits/incomes increased after that year.