PrepTest 136

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A commission determined that the Southern Tier Project was very wasteful, so one part of it (the bridge renovation) was also wasteful.

Answer Anticipation:
While it's buried under a lot of information about the Mayor's statement and a commission, this argument concludes that a part of a project was wasteful because the project overall was wasteful. That's a jump from a whole to a part, which is a flawed jump. It's possible that the bridge was an uncharacteristically efficient part of an otherwise wasteful project.

That said, the fact that the argument throws the Mayor's own commission against her probably means that we're going to get some incorrect answers that describe an ad hominem flaw and an inappropriate appeal to authority. But the former is wrong because the argument doesn't attack the Mayor's character—it goes after her argument by bringing up the wastefulness of the project overall. And it doesn't do the latter because there's no reason to believe that the commission is the wrong authority on whether a project is wasteful.

Answer Explanation:
Right off the bat, we get the correct answer. The bridge renovation was a part of the Southern Tier Project. The argument concludes that the renovation was wasteful—the part—because the Project was wasteful—the whole.

Key Takeaway:
You should be associating certain language with certain flaws. The mention of something that was "a part" of a larger project should have been a giveaway that there was a part/whole flaw here.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the bridge renovation, so it's not a general conclusion.

Incorrect. Here's that trap answer we anticipated! However, the argument does bring up evidence about the wastefulness of government projects, so it doesn't focus on the Mayor's character. The closest it gets is by saying that the Mayor's own commission made a statement about wasteful spending on a project, but that's not an attack on the Mayor's character.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, but the argument uses information about the Southern Tier Project to draw a conclusion about a part of it. The conclusion, therefore, doesn't just restate a premise.

Incorrect. Another ad hominem answer! However, the argument doesn't question the Mayor's motives at all. It does bring up the commission the Mayor "set up," but that's not the same as accusing someone of bias—the Mayor's supposed to set up commission to monitor government projects!