That wall is supported by several

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct70% picked this

   At least one of the players in the orchestra must have made a mistake, since nothing else would have made the conductor grimace

   Why this is right

   This supplies a conditional: conductor grimaces → some made mistake It establishes that the conductor just grimaced (the trigger), and then it concludes that someone made a mistake (the outcome). Both the original and this answer embedded both the conditional and the fact in the same claim. If I say, "it would be impossible for me to be having the great time I'm having if Kevin weren't here", that both reveals a conditional rule (have this great a time → Kevin here) and it factually reveals that I'm having a great time. That's not an important logical feature. We essentially find the logic of the argument the same even if the conditional and the trigger-fact were two separate claims. It just happens to be a similarity they both have.

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

   70%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The first piece must have been the easiest, since it was the only piece in the entire concert in which the orchestra

   We can tell that this conclusion is not just concluding the outcome of the conditional in the premise, because it contains an idea "the easiest" that wasn't in the premise. In fact, the "conditional" in the premise isn't a timeless rule like - the only thing that can cause a bulge like that is a broken joist - the only thing that can make the conductor grimace like that is a mistake This is giving more of a historical conditional: if it was a piece where → then it was there weren't many mistakes the first piece Either way, the argument does not establish the trigger and then conclude the outcome of that conditional. It introduces a brand new idea, "easiest", in the conclusion.

   4%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   The players play well only when they like the music, since they tend to make mistakes when they play

   The conclusion here is the first claim. The "since" attached to the second claim indicates that it's providing support (FABS: for, after all, because, since). This conclusion is conditional, "only when". The original conclusion was just factual, "at least one joist is broken". That mismatch is grounds for elimination.

   3%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match17% picked this

   One of the orchestra’s players must be able to play the harp, since in one of the pieces they are playing at next week’s

   There's no conditional premise. It's just a fact that the composer specified that a harp should be played. So there's no way to mimic the original argument of factually establishing the trigger and then concluding the outcome.

   17%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   The emotion of the music is the only thing that can have caused the conductor to look so angry just then, since

   The conclusion here is the first claim. The "since" attached to the second claim indicates that it's providing support (FABS: for, after all, because, since). This conclusion is conditional, "the only". The original conclusion was just factual, "at least one joist is broken". That mismatch is grounds for elimination.

   5%