Q1 - Community organizer: Before last year's community clean

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Last year, more people showed up than registered (by at least 24). This year, we have 85 registrants, so we'll have over 100 participants.

Answer Anticipation:
Bad generalization/temportal. Just because it happened once before doesn't mean it'll happen again.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Correct! Based on what happened last year, a conclusion is drawn about this year.

(B) The argument cares about the number of people, not the specific individuals.

(C) Wrong flaw (Illegal Reversal). Since the argument isn't based on conditional logic, this answer doesn't apply.

(D) The argument mentions residents as those signing up, but it talks about overall participants without qualifying them as residents. Therefore, the argument leaves open the possibility that non-residents participate; it doesn't overlook that possibility.

(E) The argument does define "success", but under the definition there's every chance that the event won't be (if it doesn't hit 100 participants).

Takeaway/Pattern:
Predictions about what will happen are usually flawed because the past/a single example doesn't let us extrapolate with certainty.

#officialexplanation