Using rational argument in advertisements

Answer choices

1. A

   Valid Logic3% picked this

   People who ask others for favors are refused. Therefore, anyone who has not had the experience of being refused has

   This presents a conditional and then concludes a valid contrapositive. We're looking for a conclusion that sounds like, "Thus if you're not the 1st thing, you're not the 2nd thing". This one validly concludes, "Thus if you're not the 2nd thing, you're not the 1st thing." PREMISE ask for favors ? refused CONCLUSION ~refused ? ~ask for favors

   3%
2. B

   Different Flaw: past = future3% picked this

   In the past, people who have tried to solve their problems by discussing them have often failed. Therefore, in the future, people who try

   This doesn't "flip the lightswitch" in going from premise to conclusion, it just says that "if discussing problems failed to solve them in the past, then doing the same thing will probably fail in the future too".

   3%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

   Using a computer has not improved students’ writing skills. Thus, students should not try to improve their writing

   If our premise is saying, using a computer has not improved skills then we would want to see a conclusion saying, So, not using a computer will improve skills Instead, the conclusion is just a normative (should) claim, which doesn't match the premise or the original argument.

   7%
4. D

   Different Flaw: Relative vs. Absolute15% picked this

   A person who doesn't have positive letters of reference cannot get a good job. Therefore, the better the letters of reference a person has,

   This premise establishes that positive letters of reference are required to get a good job. The conclusion then takes that yes/no type of language and turns it into Volume Dial type language. The better the reference, the better the job. That is a flaw, but it's not the same as the illegal flip of the lightswitch we're looking for. This answer choice would only match the original argument if the original's conclusion had said, Thus, the more rational an argument an advertisement makes, the less persuaded people will be to buy the product. Given this premise ~no pos letter of ref ? can't get good job We would have wanted the conclusion to say So, if you have a positive letter of reference, you will get a good job.

   15%
5. E

   Correct73% picked this

   People never learn to program a computer by reading poorly written directions. Therefore, if people read well-written directions, they will

   Why this is right

   This presents a conditional premise and then performs an illegal negation on it. read poorly written directions ? don't learn programming read well written directions ? do learn programming This matches well with the original: use rational argument ? does not persuade use nonrational appeal ? does persuade

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

   73%