PT149 S1 Q16 ExplanationFremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: personal bias0% picked this

   fails to justify its presumption that Fremont’s objection is based on

   Nothing in this conversation hints at the idea that Galindo is assuming that Fremont is arguing based on personal bias.

   0%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   fails to distinguish between relevant experience and

   The conversation is definitely distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant experience, because both speakers are weighing the value of having relevant experience (oil background).

   1%
3. C

   Correct58% picked this

   rests on a confusion between whether an attribute is necessary for success and whether that attribute

   Why this is right

   Fremont argued, "b/c no oil experience, not viable". ~oil experience ? ~viable candidate Then Galindo turns around and says, "Hey, I don't agree that oil experience guarantees success", which would look like this, oil experience ? viable candidate So the response is confusing whether we're saying that the attribute of oil experience is a requirement of a successful CEO or whether oil experience is supposed to guarantee having a successful CEO. Galindo presents a counterexample to the latter claim, but F was arguing the former claim.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   58%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match13% picked this

   bases a conclusion that an attribute is always irrelevant to success on evidence that it is

   Does Galindo's conclusion say that "oil background" is always irrelevant to success? Nope, it says that "oil background is not a guarantee of success". So we can eliminate this answer at this point and stop reading. If I saw "having an LSAT tutor is not a guarantee of success", I'm not saying that "having an LSAT tutor is irrelevant to success".

   13%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw27% picked this

   presents only one instance of a phenomenon as the basis for a broad generalization

   This refers to the famous flaw Sampling. It is true that Galindo presents only one instance, however, his conclusion is trying to invalidate a universal claim. If you're trying to shoot down a universal, like "All men like football", you only need one instance to do so. So since Galindo's conclusion is trying to invalidate a universal, it's not a logical problem that he's only presenting one instance. The logical problem is that Galindo is trying to invalidate the wrong universal. Fremont was arguing that "oil background is necessary to viable CEO", so Galindo would have disagreed by providing an example of a CEO that had no oil experience but was still successful.

   27%