This is a Sufficient Assumption question so our job is to add a premise to make the existing argument valid.

It's a very difficult question because you had to realize that they fed you the definition of "prudent" in the premises. The definition is "forming opinions of others only after cautiously gathering and weighing the evidence."

If you can't get over that hurdle, you're likely getting this question wrong.

Assuming you made that connection, then replace that long definition in the premises with the word "prudent" and you should see that this is like any other SA question.

Premise in English: being prudent will make people resent you.
Premise in Lawgic: P --> R

Conclusion in English: appearing prudent is imprudent
Conclusion in Lawgic: P --> Imp

What's the missing SA?

SA in Lawgic: R --> Imp
SA in English: making people resent you is imprudent.

That's (E)


31 comments

Beck: Our computer program estimates municipal automotive use based on weekly data. Some staff question the accuracy of the program’s estimates. But because the figures it provides are remarkably consistent from week to week, we can be confident of its accuracy.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Beck concludes that the computer program for estimating weekly municipal automotive use is accurate, counter to the questions of some staff. This is supported by the claim that the program’s figures are consistent every week.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Beck uses information about consistency to draw a conclusion about accuracy, which presumes that consistency guarantees accuracy. This overlooks the possibility that, for example, the program could be inaccurate by the same amount every time, making it consistent but still inaccurate.

A
fails to establish that consistency is a more important consideration than accuracy
Beck doesn’t claim that consistency is a more important consideration than accuracy, but rather that consistency is proof of accuracy.
B
fails to consider the program’s accuracy in other tasks that it may perform
Beck is only discussing the program’s accuracy in the task of estimating municipal automotive use, so other tasks aren’t relevant.
C
takes for granted that the program’s output would be consistent even if its estimates were inaccurate
Beck actually assumes the opposite of this: that the program’s output would not be consistent if its estimates were inaccurate. In other words, that the program’s output being consistent means its estimates must be accurate.
D
regards accuracy as the sole criterion for judging the program’s value
Beck isn’t talking about accuracy as a criterion for judging the program’s value, just claiming that the program is indeed accurate.
E
fails to consider that the program could produce consistent but inaccurate output
Beck’s argument assumes that consistent output means the program is accurate, but this overlooks the possibility that the program is consistent but still inaccurate.

13 comments