A commonly accepted myth is that

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite, if anything4% picked this

   makes a distinction where there is no real difference between the

   We weren't complaining that the author made a distinction. We accept that right handedness is distinct from left handedness. We were actually complaining that the author made an equivalence when there is a real distinction between the things. She equated "accidents" with "household accidents". She equated "higher total number" with "higher propensity".

   4%
2. B

   Correct72% picked this

   takes no account of the relative frequency of left-handed people in the population

   Why this is right

   This speaks to the objection of, "Naturally, there are more accidents caused by right handed people; there are like 8 times as many right handed people in the world as left handed people." It also speaks to the objection of even citing raw numbers in the evidence when the conclusion is about how prone / how likely a certain group is, so we would never measure that in raw numbers. We would always measure it in relation to the relative size of the underlying population.

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

   72%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw11% picked this

   uses the word “accidents” in two

   This answer refers to the famous flaw Equivocation, in which the author uses the same term or concept in two very different ways. For example, if we had used accident at one point to describe a kid peeing their pants and later we were using accident to mean a car wreck. This argument uses accident consistently; it just concludes something about all accidents while only providing evidence about a subset, household accidents.

   11%
4. D

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   ignores the possibility that some household accidents are caused by more

   Does it weaken the argument if we say, "at least one household accident is caused by more than one person"? No, that's such a puny one-data-point type of objection.

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: wholly irrelevant10% picked this

   gives wholly irrelevant evidence and simply disparages an opposing position by calling

   The evidence is not wholly irrelevant. It's certainly incomplete, but it could be relevant. Household accidents are part of "accidents", so it's part of the story we're analyzing in the conclusion.

   10%