All too many weaklings are also

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match Valid Logic10% picked this

   All weasels are carnivores and no carnivores fail to be nonherbivores, so some

   These premises are All and None. We wanted stuff like Many and Most. Because of the stronger language of the premises, this is actually valid. All W's are C. All C's are N's. Thus, some W's are N's.

   10%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match15% picked this

   Few moralists have the courage to act according to the principles they profess, and few saints have the ability to articulate the principles by

   The conclusion is not making a Trait Overlap inference, "Some A's are B". It's making a stronger claim and it's about traits NOT overlapping: "most people can't be both A and B". Most M's don't have the courage. Most S's can't articulate. Thus, most people do not have both the courage and the ability to articulate.

   15%
3. C

   Correct49% picked this

   Some painters are dancers, since some painters are musicians, and some

   Why this is right

   This is certainly structurally drifting from the original quantifiers, since it's using "some" across the board. But we still get the "A to B / B to C" premises and then a conclusion trying to make a "A to C" trait overlap inference. Also, since (A), (D), and (E) are all airtight arguments, this answer only has to be more similar to the original than (B) to win. Like happens in many correct Parallel answers, the order of ingredients has been scrambled. We need to use the Support Indicator "since" to realize that the first claim is the Conclusion. P1: Some P's are M P2: Some M's are D C: Some P's are D

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

   49%
4. D

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match Valid Logic2% picked this

   If an act is virtuous, then it is autonomous, for acts are not virtuous unless they are free, and acts are not

   The conclusion here is Conditional, so we can instantly reject this answer and move on. The premises are also conditional, so if we kept reading we would see even more reason to drop this. Finally, the logic is actually valid, not flawed. The conclusion is shown to us indirectly, by the Support Indicator "for". P1: Virtuous → Free P2: Free → Autonomous C: Virtuous → Autonomous

   2%
5. E

   Weak Premise Match Valid Logic23% picked this

   A majority of the voting population favors a total ban, but no one who favors a total ban is opposed to stiffer tariffs, so

   The premises here are stronger than the original because we have a Most and No/All. The conclusion does seem to be making a trait overlap inference. But if we analyze the logic we see that it's a valid conclusion to draw. P1: Most voters favor ban. P2: favor ban → not opposed to ST's C: Some voters are not opposed to ST's

   23%