Videocassette recorders (VCRs)

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   concludes that a claim must be false because of the mere absence of evidence

   This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, in which an author rebuts someone and instead of saying, "You failed to prove X", they go too far and say, "X is apparently false". This has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation. There isn't any opponent being rebutted. The argument does not conclude that a claim must be false, so that first mismatch is enough to bail from this.

   2%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   cites, in support of the conclusion, evidence that is inconsistent with other information

   This describes the famous Self-Contradiction flaw, in which an author says something early on that contradicts something they say later. "Inconsistent" = contradictory Do any of these premises contradict each other? There's only two claims: - VCRs enable people to watch movies at home - People who own VCRs go to movie theaters more often than do people without VCRs Those claims do not contradict each other.

   2%
3. C

   Correct79% picked this

   fails to establish that the phenomena interpreted as cause and effect are not both direct effects

   Why this is right

   This is one version of the famous Causal flaw (fails to consider 3rd factor). This is saying that the author fails to consider that we could explain this correlation between VCR ownership and going to the movies a different way. Rather than "going to movie theaters" being stimulated by "owning a VCR", it's possible that "owning a VCR" and "going to movie theaters more often" are both direct effects of some other factor ... being wealthy or being a fan of movies.

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

   79%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw10% picked this

   takes a condition that by itself guarantees the occurrence of a certain phenomenon to be a condition that therefore must be met

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise and then applies it in some illegal backwards or opposite fashion. There was no conditional logic premise here, so it can't be this flaw. Conversationally, there's no "condition that by itself guarantees the occurrence of a certain phenomenon", so we can bail from this answer at that point.

   10%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw7% picked this

   bases a broad claim about the behavior of people in general on a comparison between two groups of people that together include only

   This describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which an author extrapolates from a sample that is too small to be trustworthy, unrepresentative, self-selecting or biased in some way. This conclusion is a broad claim about the behavior of people in general. Is the evidence a comparison between two groups that together include only a small proportion of people? Nope, the evidence is based on comparing literally everyone. Since the correlation deals with binary groups (people who own VCRs / people who don't own VCRs), every person in existence is covered in that comparison. You either own one or don't.

   7%