Q25 - Katelin says that we will be hit

[christine.defenbaugh]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Evidence: K says snowstorm.
If snowstorm, then car show canceled.
Conclusion: K probably believes car show canceled.

Answer Anticipation:
For a Match the Flaw question, the correct answer choice must display the same essential flaw. So the first thing is to sort out what the flaw is to begin with. Here, while the argument looks like "A, if A then B, therefore B", that's not quite what it is. They've muddied the logic by adding in K's beliefs. Does K believe the conditional, or even know about it? No idea! We'd need to know that before concluding that she'd believe the 'then' of the conditional! Classic belief-plus-conditional flaw.
In order to have this same flaw, we're going to need fundamentally the same structure. So we're looking for:
Person says X.
If X, then Y.
So Person probably believes Y.


Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Missing the conditional premise. The "widely known" is a bit odd, but the "might" is a serious problem. Also, the elements don't really match: J says extinctions --> Therefore J probably believes extinctions.

(B) All three parts accounted for! B says bad drainage. If poor drainage, then bad raspberries. So B probably believes bad raspberries. Exactly as above!

(C) Missing the conditional premise. "Most people who say X believe Y" is totally different! The logic here isn't flawed.

(D) Missing the conditional premise - like (C), it's been replaced with a 'most' statement. The conclusion also ratchets back the certainty, saying only that the prof might believe, not probably believes. (This is flawed, but it's a quantity logic flaw, not a belief-plus-conditional flaw.)

(E) Here, the conditional premise adds in Dr B's knowledge (she knows that if X then Y). That alone knocks it out of contention. (Worth noting that the logic here is still flawed, but it's in the order of the conditional - it's flipped from the original, and as such, created a classic conditional flaw.)

Takeaway/Pattern:
Belief-plus-conditional flaws are similar to a number of other lesser known conditional flaws:
Knowledge: K knows A, and if A then B, so K knows B.
Intent: K intended A, and if A then B, so K intended B.
Desire: K wanted A, and if A then B, so K wanted B.
Does the additional component carry through the conditional? It's generally flawed logic to transfer intent, knowledge, belief, or desire from the if to the then.

#officialexplanation