Alright, so Judge Khalid was one of seven judges that made up a panel to resolve the Amlec labor dispute. The two sides' belief of Khalid being reasonable and fair comes from the fact that the Amlec panel showed itself both reasonable and fair. What is the flaw being made? This is a Whole to Part flaw. Just because a whole has a specific characteristic, does not mean that each of its parts have that characteristic. For instance, if the end product of mixing different colors is orange, that doesn't mean the individual colors that went into it were also orange. They could have been shades of red and yellow that combined as a whole became orange. Therefore, our correct answer will also be making a Whole to Part flaw.
(A) is incorrect because it does not have a Whole to Part flaw. We know that if you are acting as a representative of the school board, then you are an elected member. We also know that Ms. Barthes is representing the school board. Therefore, Ms. Barthes is an elected member. However, the list has the names of recently elected school board members, and we do not know whether Ms. Barthes was recently elected or not. There is insufficient evidence for the conclusion of this argument.
(B) is incorrect because it does not have a Whole to Part flaw. Just because Alan Caldalf shares a characteristic that all good pediatricians have in common, that does not necessarily mean that he will be a good pediatrician. Liking young children is necessary to being a good pediatricians but this argument takes the existence of the necessary condition to conclude the existence of the sufficient condition (i.e. Don't Just Reverse). Please also note that "[liking] being around young children" is not necessarily the same thing as "[liking] young children."
(C) is incorrect because it does not have a Whole to Part flaw. The answer choice does not tell us that the school's conducting faculty are the only ones who are known for their excellence. We merely know that the school's conducting faculty are known for their excellence and Mr. Diaz was recently commended for the excellence of his teaching. This does not necessarily mean that Mr. Diaz is definitely part of the school's conducting faculty.
(D) is CORRECT because it is also a Whole to Part flaw. We know that Ula sells real estate for Arcande Realty. Arcande Realty, as a whole, sold far fewer houses last year than the previous year. The answer choice concludes from this that Ula, therefore, must have also sold fewer houses last year than she had the year before. However, just because Arcande Realty sold fewer houses, that does not mean that every one of its realtors sold fewer houses. Thus, this answer choice, as the stimulus above, contains a Whole to Part flaw.
(E) is incorrect because it does not have a Whole to Part flaw. Just because all the members of the local history society support designating the First National Bank building a historical landmark, that does not mean they will support all other buildings being designated as such. Therefore, it is incorrect to conclude that just because Evelyn George is on the local history society, she will accord landmark status to the city hall building, as well.
Hope that was helpful! Let me know if you have any other questions!
davealtsNovember 10, 2019
Originally I thought it was saying that just because something was true in the past is true in the future, but then I realized it was saying that something was true of the part because it was true of the whole. This is the whole to part fallacy! Logic right?!
