Which argument is most similar in its flawed use of evidence to the mayor's argument that a program will reduce crime based on a similar program in another city?

Study for the Logical Reasoning STEM Test. Practice with flashcards and multiple-choice questions, each with hints and explanations. Prepare for success!

The main idea here is recognizing when evidence used to support a claim is weak because it relies on popularity or appearance rather than real outcomes. The mayor’s claim rests on the idea that a program will reduce crime simply because a similar program did in another city. That assumes the same result will occur without showing the underlying cause-and-effect in the new context. The option involving a student arguing the course works because many students liked it mirrors that same flaw: liking or popularity is not evidence that the course actually works. It uses what feels good to the crowd as justification for effectiveness, rather than measuring outcomes or data. The other scenarios involve looking at pilot results, a single experiment, or similar results in another city as evidence, which are different kinds of evidence—though imperfect—that don’t rely on popularity to make the claim.