Question

Arguing for the acquittal of his client from the charge of murdering the client's wife, the attorney reasoned that since neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted on the night of the murder, a thief must have trespassed on the home to steal valuables, and upon an unexpected confrontation with the client's wife, murdered her.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?

A The city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach.
B Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours – the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours.
C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
D The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party.
E In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls is more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50.

Answer 1

Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.

Step-by-step explanation:

There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:

• The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
• There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
• There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.

The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.

Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.

Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.

Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.

Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.