Whenever a company loses a major product liability lawsuit, the value of the company's stocks falls significantly wit...

Ashley-Tien July 8, 2018

Flaw

Is the flaw in the stimulus that the sufficient condition (loses a liability lawsuit) not fulfilled because the individual was involved in a lawsuit, but we don't know if the person lost?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Anita July 9, 2018

Yes. Just because we know that something has happened doesn't mean it is the only way for it to happen. Unless we're told Y only happens when X happens, Y could happen for other reasons. @Ashley-Tien

Ro13 August 24, 2018

Could you please explain why E would be wrong?

Thank you

Mehran August 24, 2018

Hi @Ro13, thanks for your post.

Let's start (as always) with the stimulus. This one presents an argument that exhibits the "incorrect reversal" flawed method of reasoning. If you were to diagram the stimulus:

Premise: LMPL ==> VFS
(whenever a company loses a major product liability lawsuit, the value of its stocks falls significantly without hours after the announcement)

Cotoy's stocks fell significantly in value today, so [Conclusion:] we can be sure that Cotoy lost a major product liability lawsuit earlier today.
VFS ==> LMPL

This flaw is mirrored in the correct answer (D): Whenever an entering student at Cashman College wins the Performance Fellowship, he or she receives $10k. [WPF ==> $10k] Eula just received $10k, so she must have won the Performance Fellowship [$10k ==> WPF]

Let's look at answer choice (E). Whenever a company advertises its products effectively, the company's sales increase. [APE ==> SI] Oroco's sales have *not* increased; therefore, it is likely that the company did not advertise its products effectively [not SI ==> not APE]. This is not an incorrect reversal; rather, it's a contrapositive argument (a valid argument).

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