Question

The great medieval universities had no administrators, yet they endured for centuries. Our university has a huge administrative staff, and we are in serious financial difficulties. Therefore, we should abolish the positions and salaries of the administrators to ensure the longevity of the university. Which one of the following arguments contains flawed reasoning that most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument above? (A) No airplane had jet engines before 1940, yet airplanes had been flying since 1903. Therefore, jet engines are not necessary for the operation of airplanes. (B) The novelist's stories began to be accepted for publication soon after she started using a computer to write them. You have been having trouble getting your stories accepted for publication, and you do not use a computer. To make sure your stories are accepted for publication, then, you should write them with the aid of a computer. (C) After doctors began using antibiotics, the number of infections among patients dropped drastically. Now, however, resistant strains of bacteria cannot be controlled by standard antibiotics. Therefore, new methods of control are needed. (D) A bicycle should not be ridden without a helmet. Since a good helmet can save the rider's life, a helmet should be considered the most important piece of bicycling equipment. (E) The great cities of the ancient world were mostly built along waterways. Archaeologists searching for the remains of such cities should therefore try to determine where major rivers used to run.

Short answer

The correct answer is (A).

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument Structure

The provided argument suggests that because medieval universities functioned without administrators for centuries, our university should also eliminate administrative positions to resolve financial issues and ensure longevity. This argument assumes that the presence of administrators causes financial difficulties.

Identify the Flawed Reasoning

The flaw in the argument lies in assuming that because one university system (historical) existed without administrators, eliminating administrators will solve financial problems for modern universities. It incorrectly infers causation from correlation without addressing other factors at play.

Analyze Each Argument Option

We need to find an argument that parallels the flawed reasoning of assuming a solution based on historical or irrelevant correlations without addressing direct causes or necessary factors.

Step 3A: Analyzing Option (A)

Option (A) states that since airplanes were able to fly before 1940 without jet engines, jet engines are not necessary. This parallels the original argument's mistake by implying that because something was historically done differently, the current practice is unnecessary without considering technological advancements.

Step 3B: Analyzing Option (B)

Option (B) suggests that using a computer will get stories published because a novelist saw success after using one. This assumes causation without addressing other factors influencing publishing and does not rely on historical precedent.

Step 3C: Analyzing Option (C)

Option (C) discusses the need for new antibiotics due to resistant strains. It identifies a new factor (resistant strains) rather than relying on historical methods, unlike the flawed reasoning in the original argument.

Step 3D: Analyzing Option (D)

Option (D) discusses the importance of wearing a helmet while biking and does not rely on historical precedent. It directly discusses safety, unlike the original flawed reasoning.

Step 3E: Analyzing Option (E)

Option (E) suggests using historical methods (searching for remains along old waterways) in archaeology. It doesn't imply a flawed causal relationship but instead uses historical knowledge purposefully.

Identify the Correct Parallel Argument

Option (A) closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the original argument because it uses a historical precedent to argue against a current practice without addressing technological reasons or advancements that justify the current practice.

Key concepts

Argument Structure

In logical reasoning, the structure of an argument is crucial for evaluating its validity and strength. An argument generally consists of a series of premises leading to a conclusion. Each premise provides support, attempting to validate the conclusion. Consider the exercise from the prompt: the argument is structured around two premises and a conclusion. The first premise is that medieval universities existed without administrators for centuries. The second premise suggests that because our modern university is facing financial difficulties, removing administrative staff will secure its future longevity. Therefore, the conclusion drawn is that eliminating administrators is the solution to financial stability.

Understanding how premises connect to the conclusion helps in determining whether an argument is logically sound. In this exercise, the argument hinges on a comparison between medieval and modern universities. The structure suggests causation, linking the absence of administrators to institutional endurance, which is a vital point to question.

Flawed Reasoning

Flawed reasoning in arguments arises when there are incorrect inferences or unjustified assumptions. It often appears as a logical fallacy. In the provided exercise, the reasoning is flawed because it incorrectly assumes a direct causal link between the lack of administrators and the prolonged existence of medieval universities. This reasoning neglects numerous other factors influencing university longevity, such as changes in educational demand, societal needs, or financial systems.

The flaw lies in oversimplifying a complex problem and attributing causality without ample evidence. Recognizing flawed reasoning involves spotting where arguments make leaps without adequate support. It is vital to critically assess each assumption made in an argument and ensure it is both logical and supported by evidence.

Causation vs Correlation

Differentiating between causation and correlation is essential in logical reasoning. Correlation describes a relationship where two variables appear to be connected, but without direct causation. Causation implies that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event, meaning a cause-effect relationship.

The exercise presents a case where correlation is mistaken for causation. Just because medieval universities survived without administrators does not mean their absence caused their longevity. This fallacy is frequently encountered in arguments that overlook other influencing factors. When evaluating whether a relationship is causal, it’s important to ask: "Could something else be influencing these two events?" or "Is there any evidence supporting a direct causal mechanism?" This distinction prevents drawing premature conclusions based on coincidental occurrences.

Historical Precedent

An argument based on historical precedent relies on past occurrences to inform present situations or decisions. While history can offer valuable lessons and insights, relying solely on it can lead to errors in reasoning, particularly when context or conditions have changed significantly over time.

In the exercise, the argument uses historical precedent by referencing medieval universities as an example for present-day policy. This reasoning falters because it ignores the vast differences between the historical and current contexts. Factors like the scale of universities, technological advancements, and complex financial landscapes vary greatly from medieval times to the present. Historical precedent should be carefully considered for relevance and reliability, ensuring the past context closely aligns with contemporary circumstances. When used thoughtfully, these precedents can provide meaningful insights, but they must be weighed against current evidence and conditions.