Game show host: Humans are no better

Answer choices

1. A

   Accurate Flaw5% picked this

   A conclusion is drawn about apes in general on the basis of an experiment

   The conclusion is about apes in general ("humans are no better than apes at investing"), whereas the evidence is based on an experiment involving one chimpanzee (that did better than 5 humans). It's a flawed move to make such a hasty generalization. If we see one 2nd grader reading Shakespeare, it's a dubious conclusion to say, "Apparently, all 2nd graders read Shakespeare". If we see one chimp beat five human investors, it's a hasty generalization to say "all apes are as good as humans when it comes to investing".

   5%
2. B

   Correct62% picked this

   No evidence is offered that chimpanzees are capable of understanding stock reports and making

   Why this is right

   This probably feels tempting at first, because it accords with our common sense that a chimp isn't smart enough to analyze stock information. But would this actually help us argue that "humans are better than apes at investing"? Not really. After all, no evidence is offered that humans are capable of understanding stock reports and making reasoned investment decisions. Moreover, the conclusion specifies that the claim "humans are no better than apes at investing" is meant to be understood purely in terms of who attains a better return on their investments. So, the author could freely admit, "Chimps have no idea what they're doing. They're not capable of analyzing reports and making reasoned decisions. But apparently humans have no idea what they're doing either. After all, this chimp, who had no idea what he was doing, attained a better return on his investments than did the five humans." (It's sort of like when people at work do really well in the NCAA March Madness pool, even when they know nothing about college basketball, much to the dismay of the supposed 'experts' who thoroughly thought through their bracket and still ended up worse)

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

   62%
3. C

   Accurate Flaw6% picked this

   A broad conclusion is drawn about the investment skills of humans on the basis of what is

   This has a lot of resemblance to (A), which suggests that neither one could be the correct answer (or else they both would be). The conclusion is guilty of a Sampling flaw. It makes too hasty a generalization from five humans to humans and from one chimpanzee to apes. What if the humans in this game show were exceptionally bad investors (or just not-smart humans)? That would make it totally unfair to extrapolate a generalization about humans' investing skills based on just these five lunkheads.

   6%
4. D

   Accurate Flaw9% picked this

   Too general a conclusion is made about investing on the basis of a single experiment involving short-term investing

   Again, this answer choice is stressing how the conclusion is way too broad/general, given the tiny amount of evidence supporting it. This was one experiment, that involved investment performance after one month, and from that, the author is going to make a conclusion about all humans, all apes, and all investing?

   9%
5. E

   Accurate Flaw17% picked this

   No evidence is considered about the long-term performance of the chimpanzee’s portfolio versus that of

   This allows us to make an objection that, "even though the chimp has the better return on investments after one month, to truly judge an investment portfolio, you need to see its long-term performance." Maybe right now the chimp has attained a better return on investment, but were we to check back in 6 months, we'd see that the humans were getting a better return on their investments.

   17%