question 16

Hi @kenken, Happy to help! The passage uses flawed reasoning to draw the conclusion that the prime minister is seeking a job at an international organization. Why does the passage draw this conclusion? Because if you are seeking a job at an international organization, you would spend a lot of time travelling abroad. Seeking job at international organization (A) --> Spend a lot of time travelling abroad (B) The reasoning in the passage is flawed for two reasons. First, it simply reverses the above diagrammed statement instead of reversing and negating it. If the prime minister is spending a lot of time travelling abroad, they must be seeking a job at an international organization. Spend a lot of time travelling abroad (B) --> Seeking job at international organization (A) Second, the voter overlooks all other possible reasons why the prime minister might be spending a lot of time travelling abroad. These are the same flaws as in answer choice (D). If you are negotiating a personal loan, you go to the bank. Personal loan (A) --> Go to bank (B) If Thompson went to the bank, they must be negotiating a personal loan. Go to bank (B) --> Personal loan (A) This conclusion also overlooks all other possible reasons why Thompson might have gone to the bank. Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Doesn't A have the same structure?

Hi @ashleybaker, Thanks for your question. The flaw in the voter's argument is that they use the presence of the necessary condition to conclude the sufficient condition. Seeking job at international organization --> Much time spent abroad PM has spent much time abroad Therefore, the PM must be seeking a job at an international organization. The structure of answer choice (A) is sort of similar; however, the stimulus uses conditional reasoning whereas answer choice (A) includes a quantifier. Stimulus P: A --> B P: B C: A Answer Choice (A) P: A - most - B P: A C: B Notice that the flaw in answer choice (A) is not that the premise is reversed. The flaw is that it concludes that Kao must play golf while overlooking the possibility that Kao is one of the "some people" who run for office and don't play golf. Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.