Question

read this sentence from paragraph 4. hamsters would make better pets than turtles, as would goldfish. why is the argument based on a logical fallacy? a goldfish make better pets than hamsters. b what people like for a pet varies. c goldfish dont interact with the pet owners. d most people prefer turtles over hamsters.

Explanation:

To determine the logical fallacy, we analyze each option:

• Option A: The sentence doesn't compare goldfish and hamsters directly, so this is not relevant.
• Option B: The argument claims hamsters and goldfish are better pets than turtles without considering individual preferences. Since pet preferences vary (e.g., some like low - maintenance pets like goldfish, others like interactive ones like hamsters), the argument assumes a universal "better" which is a fallacy.
• Option C: The lack of interaction isn't the main issue with the logical fallacy of the argument's claim about being "better" pets.
• Option D: There's no evidence that most people prefer turtles over hamsters, and this isn't related to the fallacy of the given argument.

Answer:

B. What people like for a pet varies.