Question

Crimes in which handguns are used are more likely than other crimes to result in fatalities. However, the majority of crimes in which handguns are used do not result in fatalities. Therefore, there is no need to enact laws that address crimes involving handguns as distinct from other crimes. The pattern of flawed reasoning displayed in the argument above most closely resembles that in which one of the following? (A) Overweight people are at higher risk of developing heart disease than other people. However, more than half of all overweight people never develop heart disease. Hence it is unnecessary for physicians to be more careful to emphasize the danger of heart disease to their overweight patients than to their other patients. (B) Many people swim daily in order to stay physically fit. Yet people who swim daily increase their risk of developing ear infections. Hence people who want to remain in good health are better off not following fitness programs that include swimming daily. (C) Most physicians recommend a balanced diet for those who want to remain in good health. Yet many people find that nontraditional dietary regimens such as extended fasting do their health no serious harm. Therefore, there is no need for everyone to avoid nontraditional dietary regimens. (D) Foods rich in cholesterol and fat pose a serious health threat to most people. However, many people are reluctant to give up eating foods that they greatly enjoy. Therefore, people who refuse to give up rich foods need to spend more time exercising than do other people. (E) Many serious health problems are the result of dietary disorders. Yet these disorders are often brought about by psychological factors. Hence people suffering from serious health problems should undergo psychological evaluation.

Short answer

Option A mirrors the flawed reasoning of the original argument.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument

The argument states that crimes involving handguns are more fatal compared to other crimes. However, since most handgun crimes do not result in fatalities, the argument concludes there's no need for specific laws addressing these crimes.

Identifying the Flaw

The flaw in reasoning here is that the conclusion dismisses the need for specific laws based on the fact that the majority of such crimes do not result in fatalities, ignoring the heightened risk of fatality in handgun crimes.

Analyzing Each Option

We need to identify which option uses similar flawed reasoning. We will compare the reasoning in each option to the original argument pattern.

Comparing Option A

In option A, overweight people are more at risk of heart disease, but since most do not develop it, the conclusion is that physicians need not emphasize the risk more with overweight patients. This mirrors the original argument's structure by using the absence of outcomes in the majority to argue against specific actions for high-risk groups.

Comparing Other Options

The other options (B, C, D, E) do not follow the flawed reasoning pattern. They either focus on different types of conclusions that don't mirror the structure of using a minority risk to guide broad actions or don't follow a similar structure of argumentation as found in option A.

Identifying the Closest Match

Option A uses the same reasoning flaw: it acknowledges a higher risk in one group but dismisses the need for specific cautionary measures due to the majority not experiencing the outcome, aligning with the flawed reasoning of the original argument.

Key concepts

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the process of actively analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating information or arguments. It involves using logic and reasoning to understand complex situations and make informed decisions.
In the exercise provided, critical thinking requires us to discern the main argument and identify any flaws in reasoning that might not be immediately obvious. This means looking beyond the surface facts that "most handgun crimes do not result in fatalities" and questioning whether this justifies ignoring the elevated risk of those that do.

• Critical thinking requires questioning assumptions.
• It demands examining evidence and potential outcomes.
• It involves considering alternative perspectives and contradictions.

By engaging in critical thinking, we can challenge statements that may seem reasonable at first glance but are ultimately misleading or incomplete.

Argument Evaluation

Argument evaluation is assessing the strength and validity of an argument. In simpler terms, it's about finding out if the reasons given truly support the conclusion.
When we evaluate an argument, like the one in the exercise, we focus on analyzing if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The given argument suggests that because most handgun crimes don't end fatally, laws to address these crimes specifically are not required.
However, through argument evaluation, we realize that:

• The presence of a less frequent outcome (fatalities) doesn't diminish its importance.
• The elevated risk associated with handgun crimes still justifies a different legal approach.
• A reliable evaluation notes that just because something isn't common, doesn't mean it's insignificant.

Through careful evaluation, we learn to identify whether or not the reasons truly back up the conclusions drawn.

Reasoning Flaws

Reasoning flaws are errors in logic that weaken an argument. Understanding these flaws helps us identify when an argument lacks sound reasoning.

In the original exercise, the flawed reasoning comes from suggesting that because something happens less frequently (like fatalities from handgun crimes), it doesn't warrant special attention. This is a classic example of misunderstanding statistics or probabilities.

• Reasoning flaws often arise from misleading conclusions.
• They can include circular reasoning, hasty generalizations, or ignoring relevant evidence.
• Recognizing these flaws involves looking closely at the way arguments are constructed.

In our example, the flaw lies in assuming that the lower frequency of an outcome reduces its need for address, thus failing to consider the potential severity of the outcomes.

Analytical Skills

Developing analytical skills involves the ability to break down complex concepts and solve problems more effectively. These skills are critical when dissecting arguments, as seen in our exercise.
Analytical skills allow us to:

• Identify key components of an argument.
• Understand relationships between different ideas or events.
• Draw well-founded conclusions by connecting all the dots.

In the given argument about handgun crime laws, using analytical skills enables us to systematically evaluate each part of the argument. We can understand why the argument is flawed by linking its assumptions to the final conclusion and identifying areas where the reasoning doesn't hold up. With these skills, we process information logically, ensuring better judgment and decision-making.