SDCAR2010【逻辑入门】（九）Flaw (part 1)

xiejienan

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.


The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall he support

I really do not quite understand why the OA is C
My reasoning is this:
Background. However, premise, and intermediate conclusion because premise. Moreover, premise.
Therefore, premise, conclusion.

The author draws his conclusion based on two premise: one is the change will attract more people, and the other is people who seat at high tables will stay less time. That is, more people, higher fluidity.

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

I do not understand the relation between what option c says and what the premises says.
If the exception to the generalization about lingering can constrain people to seat at high table, then i know the Option can really weaken the conclusion. But what is reaction of people who would choose to sit at a tall table is not mentioned in the conclusion. I thought this answers is a relevant one.

-- by 会员 jaze (2011/6/30 10:50:14)

Hi, I try to understand your concern and here is my opinion:
The core business and profitable product of a restaurant is food. The idea to set up the high tables is to attract people come to their restaurant and try their food. Providing the opportunity to see the celebrities is the unique advantage of the restaurant but not their income resource. To convert this advantage into profit, attract people to see the celebrities at the very beginning and promote their food is the optimal business strategy. People may just come for celebrities at the beginning, but if their love the food here they will come frequently.
I hope my opinion makes sense to you. By the way, my major is business~

xiejienan

Hi, I try to understand your concern and here is my opinion:
The core business and profitable product of a restaurant is food. The idea to set up the high tables is to attract people come to their restaurant and try their food. Providing the opportunity to see the celebrities is the unique advantage of the restaurant but not their income resource. To convert this advantage into profit, attract people to see the celebrities at the very beginning and promote their food is the optimal business strategy. People may just come for celebrities at the beginning, but if their love the food here they will come frequently.
I hope my opinion makes sense to you. By the way, my major is business~

feifan1984

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed
My guess is A, but I'm not sure... I don't quite understand what D means even though I translate it into Chinese...

请问lz这个题为啥是A啊？我错选了C。A里面的correlation是指什么捏？谢谢

sdcar2010

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly. But I have done some research, and apparently minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars. So trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.
The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument
(A) infers a cause from a mere correlation
(B) relies on a sample that is too narrow
(C) misinterprets evidence that a result is likely as evidence that the result is certain
(D) mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so
(E) relies on a sorce that is probably not well-informed
My guess is A, but I'm not sure... I don't quite understand what D means even though I translate it into Chinese...

请问lz这个题为啥是A啊？我错选了C。A里面的correlation是指什么捏？谢谢

-- by 会员 feifan1984 (2011/7/30 11:53:58)

This is an old LSAT question. The correlation refers to "minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars." So driving minivans and larger sedans correlate to low accident rates. The author mistakenly thinks that driving minivans and larger sedans CAUSES the low accident rates. Therefore he comes to the conclusion that "trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident."

mia113

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

Thanks very much sdcar2010,  your post is really helpful
For the question 1, the correct choice is D. However, I'm not sure about whether the other options have reasoning flaw.
From my point of view,  the options ABE, these are all reasonable, while C is wrong.
could you please answer my question. Thanks in advance.

sdcar2010

This is a formal logic/flaw question.

1st statement: If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. (If A, then B)
2nd statement: But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation. (If not A, then not B)

If you read my post on Formal Logic,  you would know that the second statement is flawed: mistaken negation without reversal. For flaw question, you need to find the correct answer which commits the same flaw.

Answer choices:
A) If A, then B. If B, then A.
B) If A, then B. If not B, then not A
C) If A, then B. If B, then A.
D) If A, then B, If not A, then not B (Correct)
E) If A, then B, If not B, then not A.

Choice A) is also flawed since it is a mistaken reversal without negation. Choices B) and E) are logically correct statements.

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

Thanks very much sdcar2010,  your post is really helpful
For the question 1, the correct choice is D. However, I'm not sure about whether the other options have reasoning flaw.
From my point of view,  the options ABE, these are all reasonable, while C is wrong.
could you please answer my question. Thanks in advance.

-- by 会员 mia113 (2011/8/18 9:56:42)

mia113

Got it``!!!! thanks a lot`!!!

wupenghui2000

well done

corrine90

[quote]
This is a formal logic/flaw question.

1st statement: If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. (If A, then B)
2nd statement: But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation. (If not A, then not B)

If you read my post on Formal Logic,  you would know that the second statement is flawed: mistaken negation without reversal. For flaw question, you need to find the correct answer which commits the same flaw.

Answer choices:
A) If A, then B. If B, then A.
B) If A, then B. If not B, then not A
C) If A, then B. If B, then A.
D) If A, then B, If not A, then not B (Correct)
E) If A, then B, If not B, then not A.

Choice A) is also flawed since it is a mistaken reversal without negation. Choices B) and E) are logically correct statements.

If the law punishes littering, then the city has an obligation to provide trash cans. But the law does not punish littering, so the city has no such obligation.

Which one of the following exhibits a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) If today is a holiday, then the bakery will not be open. The bakery is not open for business. Thus today is a holiday.
(B) Jenny will have lots of balloons at her birthday party. There are no balloons around yet, so today is not her birthday.
(C) The new regulations will be successful only if most of the students adhere to them. Since most of the students will adhere to those regulations, the new regulations will be successful.
(D) In the event that my flight had been late, I would have missed the committee meeting. Fortunately, my flight is on time. Therefore, I will make it to the meeting.
(E) When the law is enforced, some people are jailed. But no one is in jail. So clearly the law is not enforced.

Thanks very much sdcar2010,  your post is really helpful
For the question 1, the correct choice is D. However, I'm not sure about whether the other options have reasoning flaw.
From my point of view,  the options ABE, these are all reasonable, while C is wrong.
could you please answer my question. Thanks in advance.

-- by 会员 mia113 (2011/8/18 9:56:42)

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/8/18 11:14:13)

[/quote
I wrongly choose C, and now I can understand why C is wrong. But since B is logically correct, I want to know the flaw of B. Thank you.

sdcar2010

We are asked to find one answer choice which commit the same flaw. So the correct answer choice would not be logically sound. Rather, the correct answer choice has to be logically WRONG.