The commissioner has announced that Judge Khalid, who was on the seven–member panel appointed to resolve the Amlec la...

Irina on September 29, 2019

@Ryan-Mahabir,

This is a classic whole-to-part flaw. The argument tells us that because a seven-member panel is fair and objective, any member of this panel must be fair and objective.

Let's look at (D) and (E)

(D) tells us that a real estate agent must have sold fewer houses this year because her company as a whole sold fewer house. This is a similar whole-to-part flaw that we see in the stimulus, just because the real estate agency as a whole sold fewer houses does not mean that each agent sold fewer houses, perhaps a few agents saw a significant drop in sales and some agents sold the same or higher number of houses.

(E) tells us that members of a historical society unanimously support designating a bank as a historical landmark. George is a member, thus he must support it. (E) appears attractive because of its whole-to-part component, but (E) is actually a valid argument. Notice that the members UNANIMOUSLY support the bank, this tells us that every single member of the society supports it, this relationship is equivalent to:

Member -> support
If A then B

Since George is a member (A is true), we can infer that he supports it (B is true).

Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.