Discover answers to your questions with Westonci.ca, the leading Q&A platform that connects you with knowledgeable experts. Join our platform to connect with experts ready to provide precise answers to your questions in different areas. Experience the convenience of finding accurate answers to your questions from knowledgeable experts on our platform.
Sagot :
Well the reasoning is wrong because just because someone is a SUSPECTED criminal, that doesn’t mean they are actually a criminal. They could actually be innocent.
On the other hand, all gray rabbits are actually rabbits, or else they wouldn’t be called gray “rabbits”.
The label associated with the rabbits, “gray” is concrete and proven, whereas the label “suspected criminal” isn’t concrete as it has yet to be proven true or false.
On the other hand, all gray rabbits are actually rabbits, or else they wouldn’t be called gray “rabbits”.
The label associated with the rabbits, “gray” is concrete and proven, whereas the label “suspected criminal” isn’t concrete as it has yet to be proven true or false.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
This argument relies on an analogy. it says that because there is a relationship between gray rabbits and rabbits that the same relationship holds between suspected criminals and actual criminals. The difference here is that "gray rabbits" describes characteristics that exist rather than ones that are merely thought to exist. But being a "suspected criminal" does NOT actually imply that one is a criminal. So the analogy doesn't work, and this is a common error of reasoning that you will see on the LSAT. We're asked to Identify the Flaw, and so ideally we'd like an answer choice to address the issue of an inappropriate analogy.
Visit us again for up-to-date and reliable answers. We're always ready to assist you with your informational needs. We hope our answers were useful. Return anytime for more information and answers to any other questions you have. We're here to help at Westonci.ca. Keep visiting for the best answers to your questions.
