PrepTest 103

Incorrect. This answer highlights that a single source might lead to a hasty decision because that source could be biased, so it's an error in the Commissioner's defense.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Criticism - The Commissioner reached a conclusion prematurely.

Defense - I made it based on skimming the neighborhood association's report.

Answer Anticipation:
. . . Seriously? Come on, Commissioner! That's not a great defense.

You were accused of making a decision too hastily, and your defense is that you based it on skimming a report by a single neighborhood association? That does, in fact, seem pretty hasty!

Any answer that highlights that a single report, not studied thoroughly, would count as reaching a decision with undue haste will point out a flaw in this argument.

Answer Explanation:
The Commissioner does state that she did not study the report thoroughly, and that she's sure it's accurate. However, failing to study something thoroughly doesn't mean that a person has "incomplete recollections" of it. That would be about something the person didn't fully remember, not something they didn't thoroughly study. Since this answer fails to correctly describe something the Commissioner did, it's out of scope and is thus incorrect.

Key Takeaway:
Bizarro Errors in Reasoning questions are rare, but they do show up. When they do, the correct answer is usually correct because it doesn't correctly describe an element of the argument.

Incorrect. The Commissioner claims that she didn't reach a decision prematurely because she skimmed a single report. That assumes that a single report from the neighborhood association would be the only thing that needed to be considered, as this answer choice states.

Incorrect. The Commissioner does state that she's sure the report is accurate, even though she hasn't studied it thoroughly. That's not a good argument, as this answer points out.

Incorrect. We didn't include this in the summary because it seemed unrelated to the logic of the argument, and this answer more or less highlights that. The Commissioner clearly believes that her past actions relying on input from the neighborhood association somehow justifies doing the same again, but without a premise establishing that the past reliance was a good move (and representative of this time), it's out of scope. Since this answer points out that a premise the Commissioner advances is out of scope, it correctly highlights something that the argument is vulnerable to.