Q24 - Lucinda will soon be attending

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
WH resident --most--> Engi
Lucinda is an Engi
Therefore, Lucinda will probably live in WH

Answer Anticipation:
This is a classic reversal. Since the "most/probably" split is relevant to the conditional logic flaw, I'm expecting the correct answer to match those features.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Correlation vs. Causation). The premise and conclusion align, which undercuts the possibility of this having a reversal.

(B) Wrong flaw (Temporal/Correlation vs. Causation).

(C) Premise mismatch. There's no "most" statement to align with the given argument.

(D) Wrong flaw (Generalization; Correlation vs. Causation).

(E) Bingo. We have a "most" premise and a "probably" conclusion. The info about the construction of the mall aligns with the necessary side of the "most" statement, which makes this match our Illegal Reversal.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For Matching questions of any type, identify key language that the correct answer must have and start your analysis there.

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

Why is A considered a correlation/causation flaw but "E" or the original paragraph is not?

It seems like "E" there is a degree of correlation causation too. There is trend that most regional econ hubs also have a shopping mall. Hence, if we have a shopping mall we can become an Econ hub too?

I did see the original reason as to why "E was right over "A" but I did not consider "A" to be corr/causation flaw and "E" is not; rather it was just the slight reversal in the econ hub+shopping mall sentence.

[tuf58975]

I got this answer incorrect. But I figured it out later after started to review my errors!

Here is my reasoning process, if there is anything wrong, please point out!!

Assume "Lucinda will soon be attending National University as an Engineering major" as E
"Most resident of Western Hall" as W.

Premises: W--E and E
Therefore; W.

When we look at the answer, A is of course not correct. Assume "Major shopping malls" as MS; "Regional Economic Club" RC.

Premises: MS--RC& MS
Therefore: RC

This is not match with the original flow. A is not correct.

B, C, D can be easily eliminated by using the same reasoning.

E is correct. Premises: RC--MS& MS Conclusion: RC. BINGO!! SAME ONE AS THE ORIGINAL LOGIC FLOW!!

[ZIYAOW681]

My reasoning process:
(but I am not sure whether these are correct)

"Logic" in the Argument:
∵ most P are Q
∴ if Q, then P
(P = resi in Western Hall; Q = engi major)

”Logic" of A:
∵ most X are Y
∴ if X, then Y
(X = has major shopping mall; Y = regional econ hub)

Does not Match. And would be correct if "∴ if Y, then X".

”Logic" of B:
∵generally X are Y
∴ if X, then Y
(X = regional econ hub; Y = tremendous econ growth)

Does not Match. And would be correct if "∴ if Y, then X". (even though not sure whether the gap between "generally" and "most" will count)

”Logic" of C:
∵ always X are Y
∴ if (widely agreed) -Y, then -X
(X = regional econ hub; Y = with excellant trans sys)

Does not Match. And would be correct if "∴ if Y, then X", or might be correct if "∴ if -X, then -Y". (even though not sure whether the gap between "widely agreed" and "is" will count)

”Logic" of D:
∵ X and Y
∴ if X, then Y
(X = has major shopping mall; Y = has tremendous econ growt)

Does not Match. And would be correct if "∵ most Y are X".

”Logic" of E:
∵ most X are Y
∴ if Y, then X
(X = regional econ hub; Y = with major shopping malls)

Matches. E is correct.