Bank deposits are credited on the date of the transaction only when they are made before 3 P.M. Alicia knows that the...
BatmanJanuary 15, 2014
About choice (B)
Isn't it also flaw? Because:
"Patricia works ONLY on Thursday" ===> PW - - - -> TH
"Today is Thursday" ====> TH
"Patricia is working today" ====> PW
PW - - ->TH
TH
- - - - - - -
PW
Isn't is the same flawed method of reasoning as the passage?
Of course, it sounds logical if we put this logical draw aside though.
I need your help~
Thanks,
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Note that the question stem states: Which one of the following exhibits BOTH of the logical flaws exhibited by the argument above?
So let's identify BOTH flaws first.
We can diagram the argument to be:
P1: CDT ==> B3PM not B3PM ==> not CDT
P2: B3PM
C: CDT
We see that this is an incorrect contrapositive. Don't just reverse! Remember to always reverse AND negate. The existence of "B3PM" does not prove "CDT."
The second flaw is in the wording of the argument. The second statement does not say: the bank deposit was made before 3 P.M. It says that ALICIA KNOWS that the bank deposit was made before 3 P.M. Thus, it is not necessarily a fact. What if Alicia was mistaken? If that were the case, then it wouldn't necessarily follow that the bank deposits were credited on the date of transaction.
So, even though answer choice (B) has one of the same flaws as you pointed out (having the necessary condition lead to the sufficient condition), it doesn't have the same flaw that the argument and answer choice (C) have about the quality of one knowing as opposed to something definitely being the case.
Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any more questions.
BatmanJanuary 20, 2014
Thank you!!! Superb!!! ^^
mp0914April 5, 2018
Great explanation thank you.
ReinaFebruary 16, 2020
@naz how do you diagram answer choice C?
Gabe85July 26, 2020
I'm confused with one of the flaws. I don't understand why we can question what she "KNOWS" if it's a premise. It tells us she knows it, so don't I have to assume they aren't lying to me? It doesn't say she thinks it. Couldn't I read any question with any person and just say "well, it's flawed because what if they are mistaken?"
VictoriaAugust 6, 2020
Hi @Gabe85,
The flaw here is not in the premise, but in the conclusion. The passage concludes that Alicia knows that the bank deposit was credited on the date of the transaction. Why? Because she knew that the bank deposit was made before 3:00 pm.
We are not questioning whether she actually knew that the deposit was made before 3:00 pm. The argument is flawed because its conclusion is not sufficiently supported.
We cannot conclude that Alicia knew that the deposit was credited on the date of transaction because it is possible that she did not know about this rule. This does not change the fact that she knew the deposit was made before 3:00 pm; the stimulus is flawed because it uses this fact to draw a conclusion about what else Alicia knew without backing up this assertion.
Hope this helps clear things up a bit! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
