PrepTest 133

Incorrect. The conclusion is about general value, not specific value, so the argument isn't making an assumption about sports having a specific type of value.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
We pay teachers less, on average, than athletes, so our society values sports more than education.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument reaches a comparative conclusion—this society values sports more than education. Why? Because the average athlete makes more than the average teacher.

However, that ignores that there may be significantly more teachers, and that ancillary costs (schools, materials, administrators, buses, etc. . . ) might overtake the amount spent on sports.

In short, the argument takes one part of the amount spent in an area—an average individual salary—and concludes that spending more there means that more is spent overall. That's a part vs. whole jump!

Answer Explanation:
While the average salary for athletes may be higher, that doesn't guarantee that the total amount society spends on sport is higher than on education. There are many more teachers than professional athletes, along with many ancillary costs associated with our education system, and that total may dwarf what is spent on sports. In short, the part—the average salary of a single worker—doesn't determine the whole—the total spent on an area.

Key Takeaway:
Part vs. whole flaws generally jump from an element to a whole or vice versa, ascribing the characteristics of one to the other. This argument is slightly different in that it jumps from a comparison between two parts to a comparison of the whole, but the principle is the same.

Incorrect. If the argument related the salaries to months worked, then this might factor in, but the argument is about salary and total money spent in an area, so this is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the relative value placed in sports and education, so other professions are out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the Pundit's society ("our society"), so other societies are out of scope.