Question

Nature lovers are attracted to forests and nature parks. Just look at the number of people visiting the Corbett national park.
Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning least dissimilar to (that is, closest to) the one shown in the argument above?

• A. Defence personnel who are trained in extremely rigorous procedures often end up as dysfunctional members of society. Hence if an officer is not trained rigorously, such an officer is more likely to be useful to society.
• B. This machinery has increased the work efficiency of the workers. As a result, some of these workers are surplus to the company.
• C. Fleas must thrive in a warm environment. During warm weather my dog suffers from fleas more than during cooler weather.
• D. Cigarette smoking is known to cause lung cancer in some people. However, most victims of lung cancer live in regions where smoking is uncommon.

Hint:

Match the reasoning pattern (general claim backed by one supporting anecdote), not the topic; look for the option that uses a single personal observation to confirm a general belief.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The passage makes a general claim (nature lovers are drawn to forests and parks) and backs it up with one piece of everyday evidence: a lot of people visit Corbett park. Notice the shape of this reasoning: it states a general rule, then points to a single observed instance as proof, without checking whether that instance actually confirms the rule (visiting a park does not by itself prove someone is a "nature lover", there could be other reasons to visit).

1. Option A: This argument uses a converse mistake, it goes from "rigorous training causes dysfunction" to "no training causes usefulness." That is a different logical error (denying the antecedent), not a general claim propped up by one supporting observation.
2. Option B: This is a plain cause and effect claim, machinery raises efficiency, so fewer workers are needed. There is no general rule being tested against an anecdotal instance here.
3. Option C: This matches the original shape exactly. A general claim ("fleas thrive in warm weather") is supported by one observed case ("my dog has more fleas in warm weather"), without ruling out other reasons the dog might have more fleas in warmer months. The structure, general rule plus one anecdotal instance offered as confirmation, is the same as the Corbett park argument.
4. Option D: This option actually undercuts its own claim by adding contrary evidence (most lung cancer victims live where smoking is uncommon). That is a different reasoning pattern, since it questions rather than confirms the general claim.

Option C reproduces the same reasoning pattern as the original argument: a general belief supported by a single everyday observation, with no check on alternative explanations.

Let's summarize:

• The original argument backs a general claim using one anecdotal observation.
• Option C follows the identical pattern with fleas and warm weather.
• The other options use different reasoning errors: converse mistake (A), plain cause-effect (B), and self-contradicting evidence (D).

So the answer is option C.