Hospital Executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer
experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as
universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data.
In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients' confidentiality
our highest priority.
Argument or set of facts?
Clearly, we have an argument here.
The conclusion is that ?we should make the protection of our client's confidentiality
our highest priority.?
How do we know that client confidentiality should be the highest priority at this hospital?
?At a recent on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most
significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized
access to confidential data.?
So you notice the premise is that several computer experts said that the most significant
threat is unauthorized access to confidential data.
Therefore, we should make protection of our clients' confidentiality our highest priority.
You realize that this is clearly a flawed argument.
Doesn't make any sense because computer experts, while qualified to talk about computer issues,
cannot make a broad claim like the one they make here?that the most significant threat
faced by large institutions is unauthorized access to confidential data.
Maybe in the field of IT and information technologies that's the most significant threat, but to
overgeneralize and say that that's the largest threat across the entire board doesn't make
Computer experts aren't qualified to speak on something of that broad of a nature.
They could talk about IT and computer related issues, but for the hospital executive to
take their testimony at this nonprofit management conference to conclude therefore that we should
make client confidentiality our highest priority obviously makes no sense.
What about patient health?
Clearly, doesn't make any sense.
As we proceed to the question stem, the hospital executive's argument is most vulnerable to
which one of the following objections?
?Most vulnerable,? we see another Errors in Reasoning question.
Looking for the answer choice that describes the logical flaw in this passage, let's take
The argument confuses the causes of a problem with appropriate solutions to that problem.
You notice that clearly does not apply.
First, we do not have a cause and effect argument.
Also there's no confusion of causes for solutions.
The idea here is computer experts said that this is the largest threat, therefore we should
make this the highest priority.
(B), the argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to
be sufficiently broad to support their general claim.
You notice (B) is exactly what we talked about.
Computer experts do not have the expertise to say the most significant threat faced by
large institutions is unauthorized access to confidential data.
It's outside of their realm of expertise.
They could speak on IT and other computer related issues, but to say that this is the
most significant threat implies that this takes priority over everything else, which
clearly doesn't make sense, so (B) here would be the correct answer.
But again, let's just make sure.
Checking (C), the argument assumes that a correlation between two phenomenon is evidence
that one is the cause of the other.
(C), explaining the flaw of mistaking correlation for cause and effect.
But again, you notice, doesn't apply.
We don't have a cause and effect argument here so (C) is out.
(D), the argument draws a general conclusion about a group based on data about an unrepresentative
sample of that group.
You notice, what sample?
We do not draw data here from a sample, so (D) clearly does not apply either.
(D) would be eliminated which brings us lastly to (E).
The argument infers that a property belonging to large institutions belongs to all institutions.
Again, that's explaining the flaw of overgeneralization here, but not what we saw in our passage.
We were still talking about large institutions such as universities and hospitals.
Again, this is a hospital executive speaking so we do not over generalize to all institutions,
we are still talking about large institutions in this case, a hospital.