There are rumors that the Premier

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: conclusion follows logically15% picked this

   When a conclusion follows logically from a set of premises, the probability that the conclusion is true cannot be any less than the probability

   This argument didn't establish in the evidence that a certain conclusion follows logically from some premises and then conclude something that compares the probability of the conclusion to the probability of the premises. The conclusion is only about the probability of a reshuffle. And it's based on historical precedent, not some "follows logically" relationship.

   15%
2. B

   Correct69% picked this

   A hypothesis is undermined when a state of affairs does not obtain that would be expected to obtain

   Why this is right

   There are rumors (a hypothesis) that the Premier will reshuffle this week. The conclusion is doubting the veracity of that hypothesis (it considers that hypothesis to be undermined). The evidence for this doubt is that, if there were a reshuffling (if the hypothesis were true), we would expect to see the Premier meeting with senior cabinet members (we'd expect that state of affairs to obtain). But the Premier hasn't met / doesn't plan to meet with senior cabinet members (that state of affairs does not obtain).

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

   69%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   It is possible for a hypothesis to be false even though it is supported by

   The conclusion could potentially be matched with it's possible for a hypothesis to be false, since the author is saying "It's possible (in reality, likely) that the hypothesis of a reshuffle this week is false". But the author's evidence never suggests that "the hypothesis that there will be a reshuffle this week is supported by all the available data". We'd fix this answer by saying, It is likely that a hypothesis is false because it is not supported by some available data.

   1%
4. D

   Opposite, if anything8% picked this

   Even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances, it is erroneous to assume that the phenomenon will recur only under

   This principle is saying, "even if there's a historical precedent for X causing Y, we shouldn't assume that this pattern will always hold." But the author is trusting the historical precedent. That's how he's arriving at his conclusion. Also, the precedent was not causal, so as soon as we see, "even if in the past a phenomenon was caused by particular circumstances", we could get rid of this.

   8%
5. E

   Out of Scope6% picked this

   If two statements are known to be inconsistent with each other and if one of the statements is known to be false, it cannot

   Out of Scope: known to be false Being logically "inconsistent" means contradictory. As soon as we read "if two statements are known to be contradictory", we can bail. There weren't two statements that contradicted each other in the evidence. We definitely can't match up anything with "If one of the statements is known to be false". And the conclusion isn't saying, "We can't know for sure if statement X is true". It's saying, "it's most likely that statement X is false".

   6%