Critical Reasoning: Argument Flaw Questions
Chef Alphonse performed a culinary experiment by mixing sauce C with sauce D to produce a surprisingly satisfactory gravy. He then mixed sauce D with sauce E, also producing a tasty result. It can be concluded that based upon his previous experiments, if Chef Alphonse were to mix sauce C with sauce E, he would end up with yet another winning combination.
A major flaw in the argument above is that
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]Although it can be said that the more something is tested, the more it can be trusted as true, the experiments and their results are presented as premises. Therefore, they must be accepted as true anyway. Besides, there is no rule that states that a conclusion cannot be logically drawn if it is based on experiments that were only executed once.
There is an answer choice which points out a much more elementary flaw in the argument. Look for it!
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]Actually, the argument does not contain any comparisons at all. There are no appearances of the word like, as, more, or less.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The third experiment mentioned in the conclusion does not have similar conditions to those that were performed before since it introduces a third, completely new, combination of sauces. Also, basing a conclusion on similar events that had similar conditions can be very logical. For example:
Yesterday, it snowed heavily so many people stayed indoors. Therefore, because today it is also snowing heavily, many people will likely stay indoors again.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice does not accurately define the argument's flaw. Basing a conclusion on events that happened in the past can be very logical. For example:
Yesterday, it snowed heavily so many people stayed indoors. Therefore, because today it is also snowing heavily, many people will likely stay indoors again.
Superb!
[[snippet]]A successful combination, or synthesis, of two elements cannot be guaranteed based on the previous successes of other combinations in which these elements were involved. For example, a certain sweater may go well with a pair of jeans. Those jeans might suit a style of mustache. This does not mean that the mustache suits the sweater.
