DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially more successful last year than were its competi...

Naz December 17, 2013

The conclusion of the argument is the last sentence, i.e. "It is therefore likely that DataCom owed its greater financial success to the fact that it filed many patents last year." Why? We know that DataCom filed many patents last year, and "was financially more successful last year than were its competitors, none of which filed many patents."

What's the issue here? Just because DataCom filed many patents last year and its competitors did not, is not necessarily reason to conclude that this difference is why they were financially more successful. This argument uses a correlation to conclude a cause and effect relationship, and, by doing so, ignores alternate possibilities that could explain why DataCom was more financially successful than its competitors.

Answer choice (A) is a typical "circular reasoning" answer choice. The author has not presupposed what she set out to demonstrate. She merely points out one difference between DataCom and its competitors and then uses this difference to conclude that "DataCom owed its greater financial success to the fact that it filed many patents last year."

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

Batman December 18, 2013

Thanks a lot!!! ^^

alige December 18, 2018

This isn't directly related to this question, but what does "presupposes what it sets out to demonstrate" or "presupposes what it sets out to prove" mean? I've seen it on a number answer choices and am not clear on what it implies.

Ravi December 19, 2018

@alige,

Great question. "Presupposes what it sets out to be demonstrate" or "presupposes what it sets out to prove" is referring to circular reasoning. This is not the type of flaw used in this argument; the flaw used in this argument is one of mistaking correlation for causation (i.e., flawed causal reasoning).

An example of a flawed argument that would have (A) as the correct answer would be, "If DataCom made more money than its competitors, then its competitors would not have made as much money as DataCom."

Do you see how this example of a flawed argument would fit (A)? The reason this argument is a flawed circular reasoning argument is because both the premise and conclusion mean the same thing; they're just restatements of each other.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!