PrepTest 149

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Some argue that making an abandoned railroad a trail will result in hikers littering, but most hikers have great concern for the environment, so that argument is wrong and we should make the trail.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is that "development of the trail should proceed." Why should we do it? There's actually no discussion of the benefits of the trail, or a weighing of the pros against the cons. Instead, the argument rebuts an argument against the trail and treats that as being enough to justify reaching the opposite conclusion. When an argument reaches its conclusion based on an inadequate argument for the opposite conclusion, we have an absence of evidence flaw. The correct answer will point this flaw out.

Answer Explanation:
This answer abstractly describes the absence of evidence flaw. This argument doesn't argue for its conclusion; it argues against the opposing conclusion. Without evidence supporting a viewpoint, undermining the opposing view isn't enough to validate a conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument reaches the exact opposite conclusion of an opposing point, you should check to see if the argument commits this absence of evidence flaw. If the premises supporting the conclusion all deal with rebutting or undermining that opposing point, you'll know you've found the right flaw.

Incorrect. The only group mentioned is that of hikers, but the argument doesn't jump from each member of that group having a characteristic—it states that "most" have great concern for the environment—to the group as a whole being environmentally conscious.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, but the argument doesn't present as a premise that the trail should proceed. It's premises are about why the opposing view is "groundless."

Incorrect. The argument's premise establishes that "most" trail users are concerned for the environment, so it's not jumping from "a few" to a majority.

Incorrect. This answer describes an ad hominem flaw. However, the argument addresses a flaw in the opposing point's argument—almost the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack! This answer would be correct if the argument rejected the opposing point because of hypocrisy or bias, not because their argument is inadequate.