Is P13 S4 Q16 a flawed question? Forum

[FAJISTE]

Although (C) seems like the best answer, I was hesitant to select it because can't "many" (when referring to the amount of nominees) mean 3? And if many could possibly mean 3, then the reasoning in Choice (C) wouldn't be fallacious. If each of the many nominees could be appointed to one of the three openings and for instance, many stands for three, then wouldn't it be fair reasoning to assume that all of the nominees could be appointed to the three openings on the committee? Do you guys get what I'm saying or am I thinking too deep?

[suspicious android]

Although (C) seems like the best answer, I was hesitant to select it because can't "many" (when referring to the amount of nominees) mean 3? And if many could possibly mean 3, then the reasoning in Choice (C) wouldn't be fallacious. If each of the many nominees could be appointed to one of the three openings and for instance, many stands for three, then wouldn't it be fair reasoning to assume that all of the nominees could be appointed to the three openings on the committee? Do you guys get what I'm saying or am I thinking too deep?

Interesting idea. Many could refer to a group of three, but it doesn't have to. The conclusion says that there is a possibility that all of the nominees will be appointed. That conclusion would be true only if the "many" from the premises does in fact refer to three people. But since the "many" premise might be other quantities, the truth of the premises don't guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

[horrorbusiness]

(C) intuitively appears correct to me. I think your problem stems from not taking the word "each" the right way. I see a natural distinction between each/all in both the stimulus and the answer, each implying "each, individually"..

[1 dollar]

FAJISTE, I think you brought up a great point!

Now consider the following argument form,
A-->B
B
------------
therefore, A

It's a classic invalid argument form ('affirming the consequent'). Now, I claim when B=everything is physical and A=something is physical, above argument is valid. Weird, I know. But it's a valid argument.

Does my claim disprove the proposition that the argument of affirming the consequent is invalid? The answer is no (otherwise I would be famous ). Likewise, 'many' could represent 3 but there are infinite other options( those bigger than 3). When we substitute many for 3, the argument contains no flaws. But this instance does not exonerate it from being a flawed argument, for the exact same reason that argument (of affirming the consequent) is flawed regardless of a single counterexample.

[FAJISTE]

Thank you guys! Makes sense now and I'm glad I understand the question better.