Critical Reasoning

Source: Veritas Prep CR2
102. The last outdoor drive-in movie theater in Nova Scotia closed recently. The owners claimed that it could not regularly attract large enough audience to remain viable. However, for an entire week of the theater's operation, after the announcement of the impending closure-the place was old out every night and made a healthy profit. Therefore, the owner's claim was clearly false.

Which one of the following contains an error of reasoning most similar to that made in the argument above?

A: On the many occasions similar to the present when the library's budget was cut, staff layoffs resulted, so even though the administration denies it, the proposed budget cuts are bound to mean staff layoffs.
B: The proposed cuts in library funding would require reducing the hours of the periodicals room. But that is a room in which many students like to study, so the proposed cuts are bound to mean staff layoffs.
C: All of the students who came to the meeting about proposed cuts in library funding were strongly opposed to the cuts, so all of the students currently enrolled must be strongly opposed.
D: The overall reduction in the university's budget is 10 percent. The library's budget is being cut by 10 percent. Therefore the library's budget cut is fair.
E: The administration claims that the library's funding must be cut because of last year's poor library fund drive. However the athletic department's budget is being increased. Therefore, the administration's claims must be false.

OA: C

Is it C?

I go with E

I see E as the closest match as well, although I don't like the choice. It is the best out of a set of bad choices!!

I will go with C.

IMO E

Weird choices- E from the lot!

Any expert reply please.

I feel it is C

YellowSapphire wrote:Source: Veritas Prep CR2
101. The last outdoor drive-in movie theater in Nova Scotia closed recently. The owners claimed that it could not regularly attract large enough audience to remain viable. However, for an entire week of the theater's operation, after the announcement of the impending closure-the place was old out every night and made a healthy profit. Therefore, the owner's claim was clearly false.

The error in the reasoning can be described as something like this: "On announcement of an action, many people turned up against it. Hence, everybody must be opposed to it."

IMHO, C contains the same error of reasoning.

YellowSapphire wrote:

A: On the many occasions similar to the present when the library's budget was cut, staff layoffs resulted, so even though the administration denies it, the proposed budget cuts are bound to mean staff layoffs.
B: The proposed cuts in library funding would require reducing the hours of the periodicals room. But that is a room in which many students like to study, so the proposed cuts are bound to mean staff layoffs.
C: All of the students who came to the meeting about proposed cuts in library funding were strongly opposed to the cuts, so all of the students currently enrolled must be strongly opposed.
D: The overall reduction in the university's budget is 10 percent. The library's budget is being cut by 10 percent. Therefore the library's budget cut is fair.
E: The administration claims that the library's funding must be cut because of last year's poor library fund drive. However the athletic department's budget is being increased. Therefore, the administration's claims must be false.

I believe this is question 102 in Veritas Prep CR2.

OA is C.

Here is a "mimic the reasoning" question. The correct answer will mimic the reasoning used in the stimulus. So start by understanding exactly what is happening in the stimulus.

In this stimulus you have a theater closing because of poor attendance, yet on the last week the theater was in operation, it made a healthy profit. The argument concludes that the owner's claim of poor attendance was false.

The flaw here is one of "over-generalization." The argument takes a single week of the theater's operation and concludes something about the overall attendance. This is like taking the score of a single student from the United States and concluding something about all students from the U.S.

And this flaw is even beyond that of simple over-generalization. In this case we have reason to believe that the particular week that is used as evidence is "atypical" of the theater attendance in general. Clearly, people might be there just to say goodbye. So what we have is over-generalization from evidence that is probably not typical.

The correct answer is going to be "C." In this case you have a sample of students that came to a meeting opposing cuts to the library and from that sample the answer concludes that all enrolled students are opposed to the cuts. So this is over-generalization. And in this case you also have reason to believe that this group is not typical of all students. Those most likely to show up at such a meeting are those who especially oppose the cuts to the library budget. So this matches very well the reasoning in the stimulus.

None of the other choices involve over-generalization.

Hope that helps! Any questions?

Ron -

I am happy to help you with this since you ask. This is actually an official LSAT question. I have taught this one in numerous LSAT classes over the years. This is included in the "challenge" section of the Veritas CR2 book. Since about 1/3 of Veritas students score over 700 on the actual GMAT we just want them to have the option to be prepared for the tougher questions that they are likely to see at that level. It is true that many LSAT questions will only confuse students unnecessarily, but this is an excellent question for helping students to recognize the structure of an argument without relying on formal logic that is not needed on the GMAT.

YellowSapphire wrote:Source: Veritas Prep CR2
102. The last outdoor drive-in movie theater in Nova Scotia closed recently. The owners claimed that it could not regularly attract large enough audience to remain viable. However, for an entire week of the theater's operation, after the announcement of the impending closure-the place was old out every night and made a healthy profit. Therefore, the owner's claim was clearly false.

Which one of the following contains an error of reasoning most similar to that made in the argument above?

A: On the many occasions similar to the present when the library's budget was cut, staff layoffs resulted, so even though the administration denies it, the proposed budget cuts are bound to mean staff layoffs.
B: The proposed cuts in library funding would require reducing the hours of the periodicals room. But that is a room in which many students like to study, so the proposed cuts are bound to mean staff layoffs.
C: All of the students who came to the meeting about proposed cuts in library funding were strongly opposed to the cuts, so all of the students currently enrolled must be strongly opposed.
D: The overall reduction in the university's budget is 10 percent. The library's budget is being cut by 10 percent. Therefore the library's budget cut is fair.
E: The administration claims that the library's funding must be cut because of last year's poor library fund drive. However the athletic department's budget is being increased. Therefore, the administration's claims must be false.

OA: C

i went with E and dunno why C. can you give an explaination?

^

Step 1: Breakdown to question type: Argument & Inference.

Step 2: restate: Statement: Owner states X ( losing money) because of y ( no drive in audience).
Argument: X proven invalid, because y increased in the last week
Inferred Premise: y during the last weeks is representative of all Y (Entire population)

Step 3: Elimination: A, B,D

Step 4: Possible choices C & E

C is the better choice because involves extrapolation of premise to entire population

E is also correct. Incorrect extrapolation of premise. But recognize the phrasing of Question stem: Which one of the following contains an error of reasoning most similar to that made in the argument above. C is the answer because it is "more" correct in identifying with the incorrect premise inferred in the passage