Question

The cafeteria at Acme Company can offer only four main dishes at lunchtime, and the same four choices have been offered for years. Recently mushroom casserole was offered in place of one of the other main dishes for two days, during which more people chose mushroom casserole than any other main dish. Clearly, if the cafeteria wants to please its customers, mushroom casserole should replace one of the regular dishes as a permanent part of the menu. The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider (A) the proportion of Acme Company employees who regularly eat lunch in the company cafeteria (B) whether any of the ingredients used in the cafeteria's recipe for mushroom casserole are included in any of the regular main dishes (C) a desire for variety as a reason for people's choice of mushroom casserole during the days it was offered (D) what foods other than main dishes are regularly offered at lunchtime by the cafeteria (E) whether other meals besides lunch are served in the Acme Company cafeteria

Short answer

(C) The argument overlooks that novelty might drive the choice for mushroom casserole.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Argument

The argument suggests that since mushroom casserole was chosen more frequently than other dishes during the two days it was offered, it should replace one of the regular dishes permanently. The underlying assumption is that the popularity of the dish in those two days deciphers its continual preference.

Identify the Assumption

The argument assumes that the preference for mushroom casserole reflects a lasting preference rather than a temporary change in choice due to its novelty or other factors.

Analyze the Choices

Compare the given options to identify which points out a flaw in the argument. The argument does not consider (C) a desire for variety as a reason for people's choice. Thus, it could be that customers chose mushroom casserole simply because it was new, not because they prefer it permanently.

Evaluate Other Options

Consider whether other options address or contest the assumption. Options (A), (B), (D), and (E) are not directly relevant to the key assumption about preference durability vs. the novelty factor.

Key concepts

Argument Evaluation

Evaluating an argument involves understanding its structure, purpose, and the logical connections between its premises and conclusion. In this exercise, we see that the cafeteria argument relies heavily on the popularity of a new dish — the mushroom casserole — over a span of just two days. The crucial task in argument evaluation is asking whether the given premises logically lead to the proposed conclusion.

When examining premises, consider:

• Are they factual or based on assumptions?
• Do they support the conclusion directly?
• Are there any missing pieces that could weaken the argument?

In our case, the argument jumps from short-term popularity to a long-term menu change. This could be a logical leap, indicating a potential flaw or missing consideration.

Assumption Identification

Identifying assumptions is key in understanding why an argument might hold or fall apart. Assumptions are unstated premises that must be true for the argument to work. Often, identifying these hidden assumptions reveals weaknesses or gaps in reasoning.

In the original exercise, the assumption is that the two-day popularity of mushroom casserole implies a sustainable preference. However, without exploring why customers preferred this dish, the argument remains weak.

• Is the preference because of the dish itself or simply because it was new and different?
• Does the preference persist beyond the novelty?

Recognizing such assumptions gives insight into what supports or undermines the argument's foundation.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves questioning the arguments we encounter, probing them for weaknesses, and considering alternative explanations. By employing critical thinking, we can dissect the argument about mushroom casseroles more thoroughly.

Consider alternative possibilities:

• Customers may have chosen the casserole for novelty.
• Other factors, like promotion or availability, might have influenced the choice.
• Was the sample size too small or not representative?

Critical thinking pushes us to challenge initial conclusions and scrutinize the validity of premises, assumptions, and logical leaps.

Reasoning Flaws

Recognizing reasoning flaws is crucial for both constructing strong arguments and critiquing others. These flaws often stem from poor logical connections or unsupported assumptions.

In the given argument, the flaw is apparent in equating short-term popularity with a need for a permanent menu change. This is a classic case of overgeneralization, where limited data (two days of preference) is used to support a broad claim (lasting preference).

• Identify any hasty generalizations or overreliance on insufficient evidence.
• Consider whether the conclusion is indisputably supported by the premises.

By knowing how to spot these reasoning errors, we can better assess arguments and prevent similar mistakes in our reasoning endeavors.