In a learning experiment

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant Objection: small differences2% picked this

   The small differences in proficiency found by the researcher did not appear to fall into a

   This answer is referencing the language that no matter which sensory deficiency the rat had, it solved the maze "in much the same amount of time". This answer seems to think we should be worried about any slight variations in time as a difference in proficiency. But is the argument talking at all about what it takes for a rat to solve a maze the fastest, or the most efficiently? No, it's just talking about whether or not the rat can learn the maze. Whether it takes an extra minute, an extra hour, an extra day doesn't really matter. None of those would impact the author's claim that "kinesthesia is all a rat needs to learn a maze".

   2%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   The possibility that the interaction of kinesthesia with at least one other sense is required for maze-learning cannot be ruled out on

   Why this is right

   The fact that a blind rat, a deaf rat, and a rat without smell can each learn to solve the maze is making the author think that sight, sound, and smell are irrelevant to maze-learning. Thus, she interprets these rats' ability to still learn the maze as coming purely from kinesthesia. But as we reasoned earlier, an Alternate Explanation for how the blind rats learned the maze is that they combined kinesthesia with sound and smell. An Alternate Explanation for how the deaf rats learned the maze is that they combined kinesthesia with sight and smell. Since we can't rule out the idea that the rats learned the maze through the interaction of kinesthesia with at least one other sense, we can't conclude that kinesthesia on its own is sufficient to learn a maze.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%
3. C

   Irrelevant Objection: how it takes place7% picked this

   It can be determined from the data that rats who are deprived of one of their sources of sensory stimulation become more reliant on

   First of all, we cannot determine from this data that rats who are deprived of one of their senses become more reliant on kinesthesia. But even if we could, we can't complain about this argument by saying, "Fine, maybe kinesthesia really is how they're learning the maze; but you haven't explained how biologically they are becoming more reliant on kinesthesia." An lawyer concluding that "Paul is a Yankees fan" wins her case if it can be shown that Paul is a Yankees fan. The lawyer has no burden to tell the backstory of how Paul became a Yankees fan. Doing so could certainly add a lot of plausibility to her case, but it's not required. She could convince a courtroom that he presently is a Yankees fan without necessarily knowing the nitty-gritty of what got him there. Similarly, this researcher could accurately conclude "kinesthesia by itself is enough to learn a maze", even if they still didn't know how kinesthesia worked or how it became augmented as a sense when other senses were deficient.

   7%
4. D

   Concedes the Conclusion13% picked this

   It can be determined from the data that rats can learn to run mazes by depending on kinesthesia alone, but the possibility that rats

   The first half of this answer choice concedes the conclusion. As opposing counsel, we can't let this lawyer convince us her conclusion is true. There will never be a correct objection that says, "Sure, your conclusion is correct, but what you did get wrong is ."

   13%
5. E

   Too Strong: can be determined10% picked this

   It can be determined from the data that maze-learning in rats depends on at least two sources of sensory stimulation, one of which is

   It cannot conclusively be determined from this data that maze-learning depends on at least two sources. It's possible the author is correct that only kinesthesia is needed. To prove that, we would need a rat that is blind and deaf and can't smell but can still manage to learn the maze. Such a data point would prove that only kinesthesia is needed. Since they haven't done such an experiment (or told us about one like that), we need to still be on the fence as to whether kinesthesia is enough. Our goal is to show these authors that their conclusion could be wrong, not that it demonstrably is wrong (only once in a blue moon will we see an argument in which the author's evidence actually does prove that their conclusion is wrong; they are always mathematical in nature).

   10%