Q1 - According to the official results of last week's

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The results must have been rigged.
Evidence: The results said 80% in favor, but everyone I know voted against it, thus most people voted against it.

Answer Anticipation:
The author clearly trusts his circle of associates as a representative sample of voters. Maybe the national referendum was over "whether to legalize grenade launchers". 80% of people were opposed, but the author is a grenade launcher enthusiast who only hangs out with other grenade launcher manufacturers, salesmen, and hobbyists.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! The there's no good reason to think that "everyone you know" is representative of the general population. It's very rare that people know over 1,000 people, who comprise a demographic mix that mirrors the general population.

(B) No. This names the famous flaw of Circular Reasoning, which is almost always wrong because it sounds like this (Chocolate is the best, because nothing is better than chocolate)

(C) No. This names the famous flaw of Ad Hominem, or Attacking the Person not the Argument. The author didn't mention any proponents.

(D) No, this argument is about whether the tally of votes was accurate, so it's about the quanty of votes, not the merit/logic behind the vote.

(E) Almost, but the extreme word "solely" needs to be a red flag. Also, the author isn't "defending a claim". The author is just trusting that if everyone he knows did something, then MOST people did that same thing.

Takeaway/Pattern: Probably most of us will hear the sampling assumption being made. We just need to read/think carefully when it comes to (A) vs. (E)

#officialexplanation