Carl’s Coffee Emporium stocks only

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match11% picked this

   Samuel wants to take three friends to the beach. His mother owns both a sedan and a convertible. The convertible holds four people so,

   Does the evidence convince us we only have a finite set of options and does it rule out all but one option as ineligible? No. It mentions two options (a sedan and a convertible) but it doesn't say those are the only vehicles that the mother owns. That's already a dealbreaker. It also doesn't rule out one of those two options as ineligible.

   11%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   If Anna wants to walk from her house to the office where she works, she must either go through the park or take the

   The conclusion is already suspect because it's not a conditional (like the original was), which would make us bail from it without reading it on a first pass. But what really seals its fate is the fact that it presents two options (park vs. overpass) and rules them both out!

   2%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   Rose can either take a two-week vacation in July or wait until October and take a three- week vacation. The trail she had planned

   The argument presents two options (2 week in July vs. 3 week in Oct) and rules them both out. The planned to take a 3 week hike, but that trail is closed in October, so both of the two options are ineligible.

   8%
4. D

   Correct78% picked this

   Werdix, Inc., has offered Arno a choice between a job in sales and a job in research. Arno would like to work at Werdix

   Why this is right

   This limits us to two options (sales job vs. research job), rules out one of them as ineligible (never take sales if something else is being offered), and concludes the remaining choice (research job). And it preserves the conditional conclusion from the original argument. The condition "if he's going to accept one of these jobs" limits us to those two options, the same way "if Y gets all his coffee from C" limited us to the two options of French Roast and Mocha Java.

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

   78%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   If Teresa does not fire her assistant, her staff will rebel and her department’s efficiency will decline. Losing her assistant would also reduce its

   This argument does present two options (fire assistant vs. not fire assistant). Does it rule one out as ineligible and conclude the other one? No. It argues that with either option you will get result X, so result X is unavoidable, assuming we're restricted to those two options. The original argument was saying P1: it's gotta be X or Y. P2: it can't be X. C: so it must be Y. This argument is saying P1: it's gotta be X or Y. P2: either way you slice it, Z happens. C: so Z will happen.

   1%