Q22 - The universe as a whole

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The earth's biosphere has always been moving toward increased disorder, despite appearances to the contrary.

Evidence: The universe as a whole necessarily tends toward greater disorder, or entropy.

Answer Anticipation:
First thing's first: we gotta name that flaw. The evidence is about a whole entity: the universe. The conclusion is about one part of that whole: the earth's biosphere. That's a classic Part vs. Whole Flaw. Also of note, there is overlooked counter-evidence, indicated by "in spite of appearances to the contrary." This seems of secondary importance and may or may not feature in the correct answer since it is not part of the argument core.

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This has the Part vs. Whole Flaw: The fact that the lake system is one of the most beautiful lake systems doesn't mean that each lake within that system is one of the world's most beautiful lakes. But, it doesn't have any overlooked counter-evidence. Defer.

(B) This also has the Part vs. Whole Flaw: April on the whole is the coldest in 50 years, but that doesn't mean that each day in April is cold. But B also has another flaw: The fact that the temps are the coldest in the last half-century doesn't imply that they are "unseasonably cold." That's a term shift. Eliminate!

(C) Both the premise and conclusion deal with "every dock" on a cruise ship. Thus, there's no Part vs. Whole flaw. Eliminate!

(D) D has an "either/or" conclusion. That's a big mismatch. There's also no Part vs. Whole Flaw here. That's because the premise doesn't express a quality that an entire entity has. Instead, it expresses a quality that each part of an entity has: Every person on the crew was in the grain area. Eliminate!

(E) E has a recommendation conclusion. That's a big mismatch, too. It also moves in the opposite direction of the stimulus. The stimulus gives evidence about a whole and concludes something about a part. E gives evidence about two parts and concludes something about the whole. What's more, the real-world circumstances of E make that kind of conclusion supported. If two of seven critical parts are unsafe, that makes assembly unsafe as a whole. Eliminate!

Takeaway/Pattern:
Only A has a clean Part vs. Whole Flaw and no mismatching flaws. That makes A the correct answer, even though it doesn't include the overlooking of counter-evidence. D and E, on the other hand, introduce counter-evidence as a red herring. Don't be tempted!

#officialexplanation

[RamseyM415]

Thanks as always Laura. I think your analysis of (B) is slightly off here - the clearest mismatch is the word "likely" in the conclusion of (B).