My cafe receives very few complaints about its coffee. People complain only when quality is low; thus, because there are almost no complaints, the coffee must be high quality. Therefore, we should raise prices to reflect our superior product. Besides, customers who dislike our coffee would certainly say so. There is no other reasonable explanation for the silence. Satisfied customers rarely speak up.
The argument proceeds by doing which of the following?
- Equating a mere correlation with causation in order to justify a pricing decision
- Confusing a condition sufficient for low quality with one necessary for it, and inferring quality from a lack of complaints (correct answer)
- Using the contrapositive of a conditional to validly infer the absence of low quality
- Citing an authority to establish the product's superiority despite contrary evidence
- Drawing a conclusion about all customers from the testimony of a few satisfied patrons
Explanation: From 'complaints occur only when quality is low' the argument infers 'no complaints, so not low quality,' mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary one. It is not using a valid contrapositive and does not cite authority or rely on a correlation-causation confusion. The conclusion is not based on a few testimonies.