Although this bottle is labeled "vinegar," no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from...
Julie-VJuly 26, 2019
Wording of (B)
Hi LSAT Max,
In the previous thread, someone asked about the wording of choice B because it seemed as if excluding the alt. possibility is what the arg. is doing. I just wanted to clarify if the logic I used is the right approach to go:
The conclusion's takeaway is that only the bottle labeled "vinegar" is at fault. The premise states that both vinegar and baking soda are needed in order to get the resulting mixture fizzes, but the argument never touches upon the possibility that the baking soda can be mislabelled.
I think that's what choice (B) is trying to say-- the author didn't rule out that the baking soda isn't at fault (which is why the flaw is that the argument FAILS to exclude an alternative). Since we have to base everything on what's presented in the stimulus, we have no idea whether the baking soda was checked to determine if it was mislabelled or not. So it's in the air if it's the vinegar or the baking soda that's mislabelled.
Thank you in advance for the help!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
That's correct, your reasoning is spot it. The author fails to consider that the baking soda could be mislabeled instead, or as well.
Abigail-OkerekeNovember 6, 2021
so would this be failure to eliminate alternatives or ignoring the alternate cause? how can I properly distinguish between the two?
RaviFebruary 8, 2022
@Abigail-Okereke, I'd consider this a failure to eliminate alternatives. You could also consider this an exclusivity flaw (there could be other options). The problem with this argument is that it jumps to the conclusion that the vinegar is mislabeled. It's possible that it is, but it's also possible that the vinegar is actually vinegar. Perhaps the box that says "baking soda" is something else. The argument ignores this potential alternative, so that's the big flaw here.
