Question

According to sources who can be expected to know, Dr. Maria Esposito is going to run in the mayoral election. But if Dr. Esposito runs, Jerome Krasman will certainly not run against her. Therefore Dr. Esposito will be the only candidate in the election. The flawed reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following? (A) According to its management, Brown's Stores will move next year. Without Brown's being present, no new large store can be attracted to the downtown area. Therefore the downtown area will no longer be viable as a shopping district. (B) The press release says that the rock group Rollercoaster is playing a concert on Saturday. It won't be playing on Friday if it plays on Saturday. So Saturday will be the only day this week on which Rollercoaster will perform. (C) Joshua says the interviewing panel was impressed by Marilyn. But if they were impressed by Marilyn, they probably thought less of Sven. Joshua is probably right, and so Sven will probably not get the job. (D) An informant says that Rustimann was involved in the bank robbery. If Rustimann was involved, Jones was certainly not involved. Since these two are the only people who could have been involved, Rustimann is the only person the police need to arrest. (E) The review said that this book is the best one for beginners at programming. If this book is the best, that other one can't be as good. So this one is the book we should buy.

Short answer

The flawed reasoning parallels with option (D).

Step-by-step solution

Identify the Flawed Argument

The argument's conclusion states that Dr. Esposito will be the only candidate based solely on the premise that if she runs, Jerome Krasman will not run against her. This is flawed because it assumes no other candidates could run in the election.

Break Down the Argument Structure

The argument structure is: If A (Dr. Esposito runs), then not B (Jerome Krasman will not run). Therefore, only A will happen (Dr. Esposito is the only candidate). This reasoning mistakenly concludes a sole occurrence based on the presence and absence of only two options.

Identify Similar Flawed Reasoning in Options

Option (D) mirrors the structure: If A (Rustimann was involved), then not B (Jones was not involved), leading to the mistaken conclusion that only A (Rustimann) is responsible, thus disregarding other possible participants.

Key concepts

Flawed Arguments

In logical reasoning, flawed arguments are those that contain errors in reasoning, making their conclusions unreliable. The given exercise is a perfect example of such a flawed argument, as it prematurely concludes that Dr. Esposito will be the only candidate based on two limited pieces of information. One major flaw is the assumption there are no other possible candidates besides Dr. Esposito and Jerome Krasman.

Flawed arguments often rely on:

• Faulty assumptions: Failing to consider all possibilities or alternative explanations.
• Over-generalizations: Drawing broad conclusions based on limited evidence.
• False dichotomies: Presenting only two options when more exist.

To avoid these pitfalls, it's important to critically evaluate the premises and ensure all possible conclusions are considered. Recognizing flawed arguments helps in developing robust reasoning skills essential for logical analysis.

Argument Structure

Understanding the structure of an argument is crucial in evaluating its validity. The argument in the exercise can be broken down into its simplest form: If A happens, then B will not happen. From this, it concludes that only A will happen.

This type of structure is problematic because it assumes a binary scenario without acknowledging other possibilities. The logical flaw lies in restricting the scenario to just two potential outcomes—assuming if one option doesn't occur, the other one must be the only alternative.

Key points to consider in argument structure:

• Identify premises and conclusions clearly.
• Understand the relationship between premises.
• Recognize assumptions and potential oversights.

By dissecting an argument structure, one can better determine the soundness of the reasoning and identify any inherent flaws.

Reasoning Analysis

Reasoning analysis involves examining the thought process and logical steps taken to arrive at a conclusion. In our exercise, the reasoner made a mistake by not considering the complete range of options available in the election scenario.

This reasoning analysis highlights the importance of:

• Being comprehensive: Check for all possible factors and outcomes.
• Evaluating relevance: Ensure that each premise directly supports the conclusion.
• Investigating the necessity: Question whether each step of the reasoning is necessary and sufficient for the conclusion.

Engaging in thorough reasoning analysis helps in evaluating not only the argument presented but also in refining one's own approach to logical problems. By scrutinizing each part of the reasoning, one can discern the validity of conclusions drawn and enhance their critical thinking skills.