Over the past 20 years, skiing

Answer choices

1. A

   Doesn't Fail to Allow3% picked this

   It fails to allow for there being ski injuries other than broken legs, ankle injuries,

   Just because the argument only mentions broken legs, ankle injuries, and knee injuries doesn't mean that it's thinking that those are the only injuries there are. We're never allowed to think "the only X's mentioned = the only X's there are".

   3%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match4% picked this

   It infers disparate effects from the same

   The only causality in the paragraph is background fact that ski injuries have lessened due to better equipment. But the author's conclusion and evidence have no causality in them. It's just numbers and percents. The conclusion is that there are more knee injuries than before. The evidence is that knee injuries went from 11% to 16% of all ski injuries. That isn't inferring the effect of any cause. That's just stating a quantitative idea. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with inferring differing effects from the same single cause. It's possible that a single cause (like more CO2 in the atmosphere) could cause damage to some ecosystems while also making plants photosynthesize more efficiently elsewhere.

   4%
3. C

   Not an Objection16% picked this

   It ignores the possibility that the number of skiers has increased over the

   Since this answer starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves if the idea that follows would Weaken. Could we object to this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- the total number of skiers has increased!" No, that would just lend support to her conclusion. She thinks there are more knee injuries than before, so if there are more skiers than before that would help her case.

   16%
4. D

   Correct67% picked this

   It assumes that an increase in the proportion of knee injuries rules out a decrease in the

   Why this is right

   The author is assuming that "because the percentage of knee injuries went up from 11% to 16%, that means that the number of knee injuries went up". Technically, the conclusion is "there have no been decreases in all categories", so the author is concluding that "the number of knee injuries didn't decrease". Thus, this answer perfectly matches the author's reasoning move: "If there has been an increase in the proportion (i.e. percentage) of knee injuries, then there hasn't been a decrease in the number of knee injuries".

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

   67%
5. E

   Bad Description10% picked this

   It proceeds as though there could be a greater decrease in injuries in each category on injury than

   This answer accuses the author of making an argument she never made. It's saying the author was arguing something like this: "Our store sells only products X, Y, and Z. Last month we sold 30% more X than usual, 40% more Y, and 50% more Z. Thus, last month we sold 25% more than we usually do." The overall uptick in sales would have to be somewhere between 30%-50%, since all the constituent parts moved by that degree. This answer accuses our author of thinking that even though the overall decrease in injuries was 50%, the decrease in each category was greater than 50%. The author does think in the category of leg/ankle injuries, the decrease was greater than 50% (it was 90%). But the author isn't thinking that all other categories decreased by more than 50%; in fact knee injuries is a category that our author thinks has increased.

   10%