Critical Reasoning: Argument Flaw Questions
The average giraffe is six and a half to seven feet tall at the age of six months. Therefore, if a six-month-old giraffe is over seven feet tall, it grew by more inches each month than the average giraffe does.
Which of the following indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]Weight is outside the scope of this argument. It is not mentioned in the argument at all.
Good!
[[snippet]]The fact a giraffe is overall taller than average does not mean it consistently grew more than average in each month. For example, a tall giraffe could also be behind the average 5 out of 6 months, and then sprint beyond the six-month average in the last month.
In other words, this argument confuses a speedier growth on average or in total with a speedier growth each and every month.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The detail in this answer choice is insignificant as the argument deals with the average height of six-month-old giraffes. Some may be taller than average and some shorter, but that does not constitute a flaw.
Try to find a gap between the parameter mentioned in the premise and the parameter mentioned in the conclusion.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The conclusion makes no suggestions about normal or abnormal development - like the premise, it's about height. Therefore, this answer choice does not highlight any flaw in the argument.
Try to find a flaw in the reasoning that is concerned with height.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]While the statement in this answer choice is true, the conclusion does not equate between general giraffe averages and the average growth rate of a specific giraffe. Therefore, this statement does not highlight a flaw in the argument.
Examine the conclusion again. It revolves entirely around the specific case of a tall six-month-old giraffe, using the general averages for giraffes as standards for measurement.
