All sages provide both wisdom and inspiration. Since Dasha’s speech contained wisdom and greatly inspired her audience, Dasha is a sage.

Which one of the following points out the flaw in the argument above?

Does anyone else beside sages provide wisdom and inspiration?

The way I remember this subject:

hypothetical statement - if a cow, then a mammal

converse - if mammal, then a cow (not necessarily true)

inverse - if not a cow, then not a mammal (not necessarily true)

contrapositive - if not a mammal, then not a cow (true)

now here
statement - if sage, then wisdom
converse - if wisdom, then sage (not necessarily true) (this is it!)
inverse - if not sage, then not wisdom (not necessarily true)
contrapositive - if not wisdom, then not sage (true)

Here we have the converse, so not necessarily true.

Alternately draw Venn diagrams as Ms. Sue did in her head.

The flaw in the argument above can be pointed out by examining the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." The argument assumes that because all sages provide both wisdom and inspiration, anyone who provides wisdom and inspiration must be a sage. However, this assumption overlooks the possibility that someone other than a sage could also possess these qualities. Therefore, the flaw in the argument lies in making an unwarranted leap from the presence of wisdom and inspiration to the conclusion that Dasha is a sage.