If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement, then Frank would already have been indicted. But Frank ha...

Mehran on November 27, 2017

Hi @franco, thanks for your post. Answer choice (A) is a different flaw

(A) says: If Rosita knew that her 9:00 appointment would cancel, she would not come into work until 10:00.

This can be diagrammed:
KC (know cancel) ==> 10

(A) then says: "She did not come in until 10:00. So, she must have known her 9:00 appointment would cancel."

This is an incorrect reversal of the positive statement.

The stimulus, however, does not present an incorrect reversal. Rather, the flaw there is more subtle - the subtle difference between a prosecutor *wanting* to charge Frank and indicting him, and whether Frank is in fact an embezzler (remember: there are many criminals who are never indicted!).

Likewise, answer choice (C) mimics this flaw. It states what Makoto would do if he *believed* he left the oven on, but from that concludes that Makoto did not, in fact, leave the oven on. Of course, Makoto may have left the oven on yet not believe he had done so, right?

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions!

maxmassey on April 30, 2019

Answer choice E seems to have that same subtlety of believing. Can you explain why E is wrong?

Ravi on May 1, 2019

@maxmassey,

Great question. Let's take a look at (E).

(E) says, "If Lucy believed she was going to be fired, she would not
come in to work today. She is going to be fired, so clearly she will
not be coming in today."

This maps to

believed fired - >not coming to work

going to be fired - >not coming to work

In this argument, the event that is believed to occur is also provided
as a premise, so it's different from the stimulus because there isn't
an issue of reality vs. perception in this argument.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!