Only computer scientists understand

Answer choices

1. A

   Contradicted: no implied relationship18% picked this

   The argument contains no stated or implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in

   The first two claims definitely contain an implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in tech, and it looks like this. Appreciate Last ? Understand ? Computer Decade's Advances architect of PC's Scientists The conclusion wasn't wrong for thinking there was a relationship between those two concepts. It was wrong for illegally reversing the implied relationship between them.

   18%
2. B

   Correct58% picked this

   The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made

   Why this is right

   Since this answer begins fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in tech made in the last decade"? Yes! That would contradict the conclusion. The conclusion is saying that you can't be a computer scientist unless you appreciate these advances. Isn't it dumb / unfair for our correct answer to just contradict the conclusion? It is dumb. When an author commits a Nec vs. Suff flaw, they are illicitly imagining a conditional that doesn't exist. for example: All NBA players are rich. Bob is rich. Thus he must be an NBA star. This argument is committing the N vs. S flaw. It's also assuming a conditional that doesn't exist: "If rich, then NBA star". The correct answer will sometimes address that by saying "It confused a condition that guarantees you're rich with one that's required to be rich". It will other times address that by simply saying, "It fails to consider that some rich people aren't NBA stars". That second type of answer is demonstrating that the author's illegal conditional was imaginary by stating a counterexample that contradicts it. In this conclusion, the author imagined a connection from "If you're a computer scientist, then you appreciate these advances", and so one way we can point out this fraudulent conditional is by saying the author "fails to consider that some computer scientists don't appreciate these advances".

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

   58%
3. C

   Bad Objection4% picked this

   The argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things besides the advances in technology made

   Since this answer begins fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- computer scientists may appreciate other things besides advances in tech. Maybe they also like Belgian beers and paddle tennis." No. Pointing out other things that computer scientists also appreciate isn't weakening the argument. The author wasn't saying that the only thing that computer scientists appreciate is advances in tech made in the last decade.

   4%
4. D

   Not Self-Contradiction18% picked this

   The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of

   The situation this answer describes has never been correct answer. The closest we might see to something like this would be an argument where something early on seems to contradict something later on. But this answer sounds more like the two premises contradict each other, which is definitely not the case. Like (A), it would be contradictory to say that the premises exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion. They're set up perfectly to conclude that, "only computer scientists appreciate these advances made in the last decade".

   18%
5. E

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: everyone Contradicted2% picked this

   The premises of the argument presuppose that everyone understands the architecture

   The author definitely isn't assuming that every single person understands the architecture of PCs. The very first claim contradicts that by saying, "only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs".

   2%