Lou observes that if flight 409 is canceled, then the manager could not possibly arrive in time for the meeting. But the flight was not canceled. Therefore, Lou concludes, the manager will certainly be on time. Evelyn replies that even if Lou's premises are true, his argument is fallacious, and therefore, she adds, the manager will not arrive on time. Which of the following is the strongest statement we can properly make about this discussion?

Introduction / Context:
This logical reasoning question examines two arguments about whether a manager will arrive on time. Lou makes an inference from a conditional statement about flight cancellation, and Evelyn criticizes his reasoning but then makes her own unsupported conclusion. The task is to decide what we can say about both arguments based purely on logic, without assuming any additional facts about the manager or the flight.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Lou states: If flight 409 is canceled, then the manager cannot arrive in time.
• Lou notes that flight 409 was not canceled.
• From this, Lou concludes that the manager will certainly be on time.
• Evelyn says that even if Lou's premises are true, his argument is fallacious.
• Evelyn then concludes that the manager will not arrive on time.
• We must evaluate whose reasoning about the logic is correct and whether their conclusions are warranted.

Concept / Approach:
Lou is using a conditional of the form: If A, then B (if flight canceled, then manager late). He observes not A (flight not canceled) and concludes B is false (manager on time). This is a classic invalid pattern called denying the antecedent: from If A then B and not A, one cannot deduce anything about B. Evelyn correctly identifies his argument as fallacious. However, Evelyn then claims the opposite conclusion that the manager will not be on time. She bases this only on the fact that Lou's argument is fallacious, which does not logically establish the opposite of his conclusion. A fallacious argument does not imply that its conclusion is false; it only implies that the conclusion is not supported by that argument.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Represent Lou's reasoning: If flight 409 is canceled (A), then the manager cannot arrive on time (not T). The flight was not canceled (not A). Lou concludes that the manager will be on time (T).Step 2: The pattern is: If A then not T. Not A. Therefore T. This is logically invalid. From not A, we cannot infer T or not T. The manager might or might not be on time for other reasons.Step 3: Therefore Evelyn is correct when she says that Lou's argument is fallacious.Step 4: Evelyn then concludes that the manager will not arrive on time. However, this conclusion does not follow from showing that Lou's reasoning is invalid. Demonstrating that an argument is fallacious does not establish the negation of its conclusion.Step 5: The truth of the manager's arrival time remains undetermined by the given information. The manager could still be on time or late, and neither Lou nor Evelyn has proved either outcome.Step 6: The strongest correct statement is therefore that Evelyn is correct about Lou's argument being fallacious, but her own conclusion is unwarranted.

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option A says Evelyn is mistaken about the fallacy in Lou's argument, which is incorrect because the pattern is indeed invalid.
• Option C claims both A and B are correct, which cannot be true since A is incorrect.
• Option D claims that none of the statements is correct, but B is correct.
• Option E incorrectly states that Lou's argument is valid, which conflicts with the logical analysis.

Common Pitfalls:

• Assuming that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.
• Failing to recognize the invalid pattern of denying the antecedent.
• Confusing logical validity (structure) with the actual truth of a conclusion.

Final Answer:
The strongest correct statement is that Evelyn is right about Lou's argument being fallacious, but her own conclusion is unwarranted.