Question
Read the excerpt from Amit’s essay.
In the mid-2010s, it was predicted that by 2020, self-driving cars would be prevalent on the nation’s highways. Automotive manufacturers agreed, proclaiming that they would have cars driven by AI—artificial intelligence—by the early 2020s. However, this proved to be a failed forecast. By 2021, self-driving cars were not even out of testing phases. What led to this massive miscalculation? After all, the technology existed to make self-driving vacuums, so why not cars? It should have been easy for engineers to take the parts from one self-driving machine and put them into another.
Which logical fallacy is present in Amit’s argument?
A: straw man
B: non sequitur
C: false dilemma
D: faulty analogy
In the mid-2010s, it was predicted that by 2020, self-driving cars would be prevalent on the nation’s highways. Automotive manufacturers agreed, proclaiming that they would have cars driven by AI—artificial intelligence—by the early 2020s. However, this proved to be a failed forecast. By 2021, self-driving cars were not even out of testing phases. What led to this massive miscalculation? After all, the technology existed to make self-driving vacuums, so why not cars? It should have been easy for engineers to take the parts from one self-driving machine and put them into another.
Which logical fallacy is present in Amit’s argument?
A: straw man
B: non sequitur
C: false dilemma
D: faulty analogy
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The logical fallacy present in Amit’s argument is **D: faulty analogy**.
Amit compares self-driving vacuums to self-driving cars, suggesting that since the technology for self-driving vacuums existed, it should have been easy to apply that technology to cars. This overlooks significant differences in complexity, safety requirements, and regulatory challenges that distinguish the two technologies. Thus, the analogy is flawed.
Amit compares self-driving vacuums to self-driving cars, suggesting that since the technology for self-driving vacuums existed, it should have been easy to apply that technology to cars. This overlooks significant differences in complexity, safety requirements, and regulatory challenges that distinguish the two technologies. Thus, the analogy is flawed.