Question

Nature lovers are attracted to forests and nature parks. Just look at the number of people visiting the Corbett national park.
Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning least dissimilar to (that is, closest to) the one shown in the argument above?

• A. Defence personnel who are trained in extremely rigorous procedures often end up as dysfunctional members of society. Hence if an officer is not trained rigorously, such an officer is more likely to be useful to society.
• B. This machinery has increased the work efficiency of the workers. As a result, some of these workers are surplus to the company.
• C. Fleas must thrive in a warm environment. During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas more than during cooler weather.
• D. Cigarette smoking is known to cause lung cancer in some people. However, most victims of lung cancer live in regions where smoking is uncommon.

Hint:

Match the reasoning pattern (general claim backed by one supporting anecdote), not the topic; look for the option that uses a single personal observation to confirm a general belief.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Start by naming the pattern in the given argument: it is a "general claim plus one supporting example" argument. The claim is that nature lovers are drawn to parks, and the sole support offered is footfall data from one specific park, Corbett. No attempt is made to rule out other reasons people might visit (crowds, school trips, curiosity). We need the option built the same way.

1. Option A: Reasons backwards, from "training causes a bad outcome" to "no training must cause a good outcome." This is a converse error, a different mistake from the original.
2. Option B: A direct cause leading to a direct effect (better machines, fewer workers needed). No general claim is being tested with a single supporting example, so this does not match.
3. Option C: Here a general belief (fleas like warmth) is defended purely by one personal observation (the dog's flea count rises in warm weather), with no check for other explanations. This is exactly the "general claim, one anecdote as proof" shape used in the Corbett example.
4. Option D: Brings in a fact that works against the claim rather than for it, so it is not simply offering a supporting example; it is closer to a self-defeating argument.

Only option C keeps the same two-part structure, general claim first, then a single anecdotal case cited as evidence, so it is the closest match.

Let's summarize:

• Look for the same argument shape, not the same topic.
• The Corbett argument is "general rule plus one supporting anecdote."
• Option C (fleas and warm weather) copies this shape exactly.

The answer is option C.