Researcher: Results indicate that the

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   Results indicate that the quality of papers submitted for publication varies significantly from university to university. This may say nothing about the quality of

   None of the premise stuff matches up here. In the original argument we had a strong correlation that, "the more X, the more Y". In this, we have a wishy-washy statement that "quality varies from place to place". That's already a dealbreaker. The premise should sound like, "Maybe it's reverse causality: Y came first, and X came later", whereas this premise offers an alternate explanation of "maybe the data is just bad (maybe the review process is just defective").

   1%
2. B

   Correct86% picked this

   Results from competition indicate that professional athletes outperform amateur athletes. These results do not prove that becoming a professional athlete improves one's athletic performance,

   Why this is right

   This one matches well with our conversational model (and matches pretty well with our algebraic recipe). The conclusion, like the original, is saying, "These results don't prove that X causes Y". ORIG ... don't prove that higher ed causes math skill (B) ... don't prove that being professional causes athletic skills And the evidence, like the original, is raising the possibility that one trait predated the other. ORIG maybe they had math skill first, and that allowed them to reach higher ed (B) maybe the had athletic skill first, and that allowed them to reach professional heights. The one structural sense in which this is different is that the original study result had the very strong correlation form of a Volume Dial relationship: the more X, the more Y. This does not copy that feature; it doesn't say, "The higher level of professional heights they reached, the more athletic they were". Instead it just generalizes about one group being more of something than another group: "The professionals were more athletic than the non-professionals". If we had another answer similar to (B) that also matched the Volume Dial background fact, that would make that answer superior to (B). But (B) is good enough and it's our best available match.

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

   86%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match11% picked this

   Studies indicate that students who graduate from more prestigious schools often get good jobs. These studies do not show that these schools prepare students

   The study result here is much weaker than in the original argument. ORIG: the more X, the more Y (C): people who are X are often Y (that's not even a correlation. We can say "people who smoke everyday often don't develop lung problems", even though daily smoking and lung problems are definitely correlated) And the premise is supposed to be raising the possibility that one factor predated another. This premise is saying, "It's not that employers are impressed with how prepared for the job market the candidate is; it might be that they're just impressed with the school they went to". This argument isn't even eligible for the "what if Y came before X" type of objection, because by definition attending schools here came before getting a good job.

   11%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   Surveys indicate that politicians with law degrees are better at what they do than politicians without law degrees. These surveys do not prove that

   The first two ideas are solid, but for the argument to match, the last claim should be raising the possibility that Y came before X. "This doesn't prove that having a law degree caused them to be a better politician, since it's possible that people who already had more skills as a politician are the people who go on to enter law school". Instead, this argument objects by saying that the data might be bad / incomplete.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Everything Match0% picked this

   Studies suggest that some people who are gifted in higher mathematics are inept at performing simple arithmetical calculations. These studies do not show that

   There is no study result that presents a correlation. ORIG: the more X, the more Y (this applies to all data points) (E): some people who are X are not Y (that's only one data point) And the premise isn't saying that "it's possible that Y (or not Y) came earlier than X". It's just saying, "many people are both X and Y".

   0%