Lou observes that if flight 409 is cancelled, then the manager could not possibly arrive in time for the meeting. But the flight was not cancelled. Therefore, Lou concludes, the manager will certainly be on time. Evelyn replies that even if Lou's premises are true, his argument is fallacious. And therefore, she adds, the manager will not arrive on time after all.

Which of the following is the strongest thing that we can properly say about this discussion?

Question

Read the following statements and answer the question that follows.
A. Back then, they were owned by companies and installed on their premises.
B. Rooms and servers began to replace computer mainframes in the 1990’s.
C. These were supplemented by processors from Intel, which by the mid-2000s translated its dominance of PC semiconductors into a near monopoly of the server market.
D. They mostly ran on chips made by IBM and HP, the big tech of the day.
E. Things started to change once again around a decade ago, when Amazon began selling some of its spare server capacity.
Which of the following combinations is the MOST logically ordered?

Answer 1

Think of this as two separate claims stacked on top of each other, and test each one on its own.

Claim 1, Lou's argument: Lou says cancelled flight leads to late manager, flight was not cancelled, so manager is on time. This pattern, denying the antecedent, is never logically safe, because a delay can happen for reasons that have nothing to do with flight 409 being cancelled. So Lou's argument is indeed fallacious, and Evelyn is right on this point.
Claim 2, Evelyn's own conclusion: Evelyn jumps from "Lou's argument is bad" to "the manager will not be on time." But disproving one argument for a conclusion says nothing about whether the opposite conclusion is true. The manager could still arrive on time for reasons Lou never mentioned. Evelyn's claim needs its own support, which she never gives, so it is unwarranted.

Since Claim 1 is correct but Claim 2 is not supported, the option that captures both is the one saying Evelyn is right about the fallacy while her own conclusion stays unwarranted.

Let's summarize:

Pointing out a flawed argument does not prove its conclusion false or its opposite true.
Evelyn's diagnosis of Lou is correct, but her own guess about lateness is a fresh, unsupported claim.

Final answer: $\boxed{\text{Option B}}$

Answer 2

Think of this as two separate claims stacked on top of each other, and test each one on its own.

Claim 1, Lou's argument: Lou says cancelled flight leads to late manager, flight was not cancelled, so manager is on time. This pattern, denying the antecedent, is never logically safe, because a delay can happen for reasons that have nothing to do with flight 409 being cancelled. So Lou's argument is indeed fallacious, and Evelyn is right on this point.
Claim 2, Evelyn's own conclusion: Evelyn jumps from "Lou's argument is bad" to "the manager will not be on time." But disproving one argument for a conclusion says nothing about whether the opposite conclusion is true. The manager could still arrive on time for reasons Lou never mentioned. Evelyn's claim needs its own support, which she never gives, so it is unwarranted.

Since Claim 1 is correct but Claim 2 is not supported, the option that captures both is the one saying Evelyn is right about the fallacy while her own conclusion stays unwarranted.

Let's summarize:

Pointing out a flawed argument does not prove its conclusion false or its opposite true.
Evelyn's diagnosis of Lou is correct, but her own guess about lateness is a fresh, unsupported claim.

Final answer: $\boxed{\text{Option B}}$

Show Hint

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Critical Reasoning

Questions Asked in SNAP exam