Several carefully conducted studies

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   The majority of people who regularly drive over the speed limit will become involved in traffic accidents. To avoid harm to people who do

   This conclusion adds in a brand new concept (hiring more police officers to enforce speed laws). The original argument kept recycling the same two concepts: avoiding meat and heart disease.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match22% picked this

   Studies have shown that cigarette smokers have a greater chance of incurring heart disease than people who do not smoke. Since cigarette smoking increases

   The first premise already seems like a red flag, because it's not an Incomplete Comparison. In the original, they told us a statistic for vegetarians, but not for non-vegetarians. Here, meanwhile, they're giving us an actual head-to-head comparison: cig smokers vs. non smokers. In the original, there was no second premise. It went straight into an intermediate conclusion. Here, meanwhile, they're giving us a 2nd premise that actually provides causality as a fact.

   22%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The majority of people who regularly drink coffee experience dental problems in the latter part of their lives. Since there is this correlation between

   This conclusion, like (A)'s, adds in a brand new idea (the government making coffee less accessible). The original argument had two conclusions, both of which were just reiterating the two concepts from the premise: avoiding meat and risk of heart disease.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match Weak Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Studies show that people who do not exercise regularly have a shorter life expectancy than those who exercise regularly. To help increase their patients’

   The first premise is a red flag, because it's not an Incomplete Comparison. In the original, they told us a statistic for vegetarians, but not for non-vegetarians. Here, meanwhile, they're giving us an actual head-to-head comparison: don't exercise regularly vs. do exercise regularly. This problem with the answer is similar to (B). Also, the conclusion adds a new concept (doctors), whereas the original argument didn't. This problem is similar to (A) and (C).

   4%
5. E

   Correct69% picked this

   Most people who exercise regularly are able to handle stress. This shows that exercising regularly decreases one’s chances of being overwhelmed by stress. So

   Why this is right

   Well, structurally it has the best chance of matching, since it's the only answer choice with two conclusions, just like the original argument. Here, those are indicated by "this shows that" and "So". In the original, those were indicated by "we can conclude" and "therefore". Does it provide an Incomplete Comparison? Yes. It says that "most people who regularly exercise can handle stress", but it seems to assume that "most people who don't regularly exercise can't handle stress". Does it take that assumed similarity and then make some Correlation = Causation move? Yes. It goes from thinking that regular exercise is correlated with can handle stress to an Intermediate Conclusion that assumes that regular exercise is the cause of this ability to handle stress. It also replicates the final conclusion, which is not really flawed, but it's lovely to see such a good match. All three ingredients (the premise and the two conclusions) were focused on regular exercise and handling stress, just as all three ingredients in the original were focused on avoiding meat and risk of heart disease.

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

   69%