Thanks for the question! (B) is wrong because it has a flaw of a different kind. Let’s take a look at the stimulus to find out what the incorrect reasoning is first. We’re told that if a company loses a kind of lawsuit, its stocks fall. Then we’re told that a company that was in a kind of lawsuit had its stocks fall significantly, so we can conclude that it lost. This just simply the error of
P1) A —> B P2) B C) A
In other words, we get the sufficient condition from the necessary condition, when it should be the other way around. There are other reasons the stocks fell—maybe a rival company launched a strong campaign of some kind, or some major news about the company hit that was bad.
(B), however, does not do this. (B) just tells us that when large airlines decrease fares, it’s bad for small airlines, so when large airlines REALLY decrease fares, it’s REALLY bad for small airlines. The flaw could be phrased as assuming there’s a linear or order-of-magnitude relationship between the two, which isn’t at all what’s going on in the stimulus. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
