Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a parallel reasoning (flaw) question. We must first identify the logical flaw in a preceding argument and then find the option that contains the same type of error. The most likely intended reference for "the argument above" is the pattern of reasoning from questions 20 and 21.
Step 2: Identifying the Flaw:
The flaw in the arguments about internet cafes (Q20) and landlines (Q21) is the same: the argument assumes that because the primary, most obvious function of a thing is being replaced or is no longer unique, the thing as a whole is obsolete. This flaw ignores other possibilities. For internet cafes, it ignores other potential services. For landlines, it ignores other potential uses. In essence, it mistakes one sufficient condition for a necessary one (e.g., "Internet access is a reason to have an internet cafe" is treated as "The only reason to have an internet cafe is for internet access").
Step 3: Analyzing the Options for a Parallel Flaw:
- (A) This argument is logically valid.
- (B) This argument contains the target flaw. The premises state that being a Chord is a sufficient condition for being well made (Chord \(\rightarrow\) Well Made). The conclusion commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, treating it as a necessary condition (Well Made \(\rightarrow\) Chord). It ignores the possibility that other brands of cars could also be well made. This directly parallels the flaw of ignoring other possibilities (other services at cafes, other uses for landlines).
- (C) This argument is logically valid.
- (D) This is flawed, but the flaw is different. It's a non sequitur; the conclusion about typing "fifty words per minute" is completely arbitrary and has no basis in the premises.
- (E) This is the fallacy of composition. It assumes a mixture will have properties that are an average of its parts. While this involves an assumption, the structure is about parts and wholes, which is slightly different from the flaw of ignoring alternative categories seen in the reference arguments and option (B). The flaw in (B) is a more precise match.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The reasoning in option (B) is flawed because it assumes that Chords are the only well-made cars and Fyslers are the only poorly made ones, ignoring other alternatives. This is the same type of error as assuming internet access is the only service offered by internet cafes or that communication is the only use for landlines.
Disregard commonly known facts. Which conclusion would follow on the basis of given statements only?
Statement (I): Some bottles are car. Some cars are cycle.
Conclusion: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{[(I)] Some bottles are cycle is a possibility.} \\ \bullet & \text{[(II)] All bottles are cycle.} \\ \end{array}\]
If \(8x + 5x + 2x + 4x = 114\), then, \(5x + 3 = ?\)
If \(r = 5 z\) then \(15 z = 3 y,\) then \(r =\)