Errors in Reasoning Questions - - Question 5
Although this bottle is labeled "vinegar," no fizzing occurred when some of the liquid in it was added to powder from...
Replies
jrod5488 November 21, 2014
The argument leads to the conclusion that the bottle labeled as "vinegar" has been mislabeled, but ignores the possibility that the box labeled as "baking soda" is what may be mislabeled. Therefore, an alternative explanation for the stated effect, that the box labeled as "baking soda" is what was mislabeled, has been ignored. Making answer choice C correct.jrod5488 November 21, 2014
Sorry, I meant to write answer choice B, not C.Zaviea-Gaynor January 9, 2019
I need clarification
Ravi January 9, 2019
@KDA86 and @Zaviea-Gaynor,Happy to provide some clarification for you. @jrod5488, great message
board participation—keep it up!
We're told that a bottle labeled "vinegar" produced no fizzing when
some of its liquid was added to a powder from a box labeled "baking
soda."
We're then told that when an acidic liquid, such as vinegar, is added
to baking soda, the resulting mixture fizzes. The argument then
concludes that since there was no fizzing, the bottle must have been
mislabeled.
But, wait a second. What if the box labeled "baking soda" was
mislabeled instead? Wouldn't that have also failed to produce fizzing?
This is the problem with the author's argument; it's failing to
consider an alternative cause for what happened.
Now that we know the flaw, let's look at the answers.
Answer A is incorrect because it does not ignore this possibility;
rather, this very possibility is a key component of the conclusion.
Answer B says, "fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the
observed effect." This is a great paraphrasing of what we said the
flaw was (that the author failed to consider an alternative cause for
what happened), so this is the correct answer. The alternative
explanation is that the box containing the powder was mislabeled. The
author did not rule out this possibility for the lack of fizzing.
Answer C is incorrect because the definition of the word "fizz" does
not play into the argument at all. This is not a flaw of the reasoning
in the argument.
Answer D is incorrect because it brings into discussed an entirely new
concept—scientific principles—that was not discussed at all in the
stimulus. Our concern is about the mislabeling of bottles, not
scientific principles.
Answer E is incorrect because there is never any mention of an
intention to deceive in the stimulus, so this is not the flaw of the
argument.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
Zaviea-Gaynor January 9, 2019
Im in the 143-149 range. How can I go from 158-164 range quickly?Cal May 14, 2019
@raviIsn't the phrasing of B a bit off? The stem says "a flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument...." with followed up by B: "fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect"
Excluding an alternative explanation is exactly what the author did, which is to not consider the alternative explanation that the Baking Soda was mislabelled.
Whereas the author's flaw is that they failed to CONSIDER/INCLUDE/ETC. that the baking soda could have been the issue.