标题: LSAT-set14-IV-16 [打印本页] 作者: jubel 时间: 2003-7-18 10:01 标题: LSAT-set14-IV-16 16. From the observation that each member of a group could possess a characteristic, it is fallacious to conclude immediately that it is possible for all the group's members to possess the characteristic. An example in which the fallacy is obvious: arguing that because each of the players entering a tennis tournament has a possibility of winning it, there is therefore a possibility that all will win the tournament.
Which one of the following commits the fallacy described above?
(A) You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time
(B) Each of the candidates for mayor appears at first glance to possess the necessary qualifications. It would therefore be a mistake to rule out any of them without more careful examination
(C) Each of the many nominees could be appointed to any one of the three openings on the committee. Therefore it is possible for all of the nominees to be appointed to the openings on the committee
(D) If a fair coin is tossed five times, then on each toss the chance of heads being the result is half. Therefore the chance of heads being the result on all five tosses is also half
(E) It is estimated that ten million planets capable of supporting life exist in our galaxy. Thus to rule out the possibility of life on worlds other than Earth, ten million planetary explorations would be needed
jubel 发表于 2003-7-18 10:01
16. From the observation that each member of a group could possess a characteristic, it is fallaciou ...
P1: Each member of a group could possess a characteristic
P2: An example where the fallacy is obvious: Arguing that because each of the players entering a tennis tournament has a possibility of winning it, there is therefore a possibility that all will win the tournament.
C: It is fallacious to conclude immediately that it is possible for all the group's members to possess the characteristic
The core of the argument is offering a support by citing an example that under a condition of only 1 sample could be having a characteristic and the rest of the samples within the group even does have the possibilities of having that characteristic; however, it is not possible for all to have that characteristic ( You either win or lose, and even everyone does have the possibility to win, but it is not possible to have everyone be the winners ) to conclude a claim that it must be wrong to conclude it is possible for all the group's member to possess that characteristics. However, the example cited had already changed the concept of " characteristic " compares to the original claim. What if the " characteristic " cited from the original claim does not embed the concept of " either A ( Win ) or No A ( Lose ) " ? Apparently, the fallacy here is to generalize the manifestation shown from some of the characteristics happen under certain circumstances could be representing the overall manifestation shown from all of the characteristics happen under all of the circumstances.
Which is to say, the argument conclude its argument by contradicting his own.
let us dive into the answers.
A. There is no characteristic of " either A or no A ". You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of people all of the time. If some of the people being fooled within certain period of the time also counted toward as all of the people, and the time they found out of being fooled are different, then you truly can't fool all of the people all of the time.
B. It's not about either win the election or " not win " the election; instead, its about whether you can eliminate a candidate with careful examination or not. Having the necessary qualifications themselves does not guarantee the qualifications themselves as being sufficient. So the flaw committed here is treating the necessary conditions also as the sufficient conditions and mistakenly conclude that there is no the other condition to sufficiently lead to the necessary conditions.
C. Many " could be " equal from 1-100 out of 100. So, if we do have " 3 " nominees being appointed to " 3 " opening positions, it could totally be true that there is no one of them " not to be " appointed. If it could be true that " no one not to be appointed ", then there is no the characteristic " either A or No A " shown within the argument.
D. A characteristic of sample could present the characteristic of the group. Would not it sound like the flaw we just spotted ? Original argument conclude by offering the example of " if a characteristic of samples would prove the fact that not everyone of the group could have the outcome brought by that characteristic, then it must be true that this example could be presenting all of the scenarios of how the characteristic of the sample effect the " outcome : of group.
* Using one similar concept to prove that certain outcome not exist to conclude that under all the scenarios, the outcome should all not exist.
Originally, I was struggling between C & D. However, I believe that D must be better answer than C.