The experts who now assure

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   The same people who complain that taxes are too high complain that the government does not provide enough services. We should conclude that high

   We have "the same people who say X are the ones who say Y", which is a weak match for, "The same people who say X are the ones who previously said Y". But more importantly, there's no premise saying, "Y ended up being wrong."

   2%
2. B

   Weak Evidence/Conclusion Match16% picked this

   The film critics who called Meisner's last film brilliant are the same ones who are calling her new film confused and boring. But because

   We have "the same people who said X are the ones who now say Y", which is a good match for our first premise. Do we have a premise saying, "They were wrong about X" and a conclusion saying, "So they'll be wrong about Y?" No. We have a premise saying, "They were right about X (they said the last film was brilliant and it was excellent), so I think they'll be wrong about Y (they said the new film will suck but I think it will be good)."

   16%
3. C

   Correct76% picked this

   The economists who tell us that the current economic expansion will soon be over are the same economists who failed to predict the end

   Why this is right

   We can match everything up here with the original. Prem 1: The people saying X are the same people who previously said Y. Those now saying "current expansion will soon be ending" are the same ones who said "recession isn't ending yet". Prem 2: Y turned out to be wrong. The recession did end. They failed to predict its end. Conc: X will turn out to be wrong. The current expansion is not ending. It will continue for some time. Notice how the two premises are sort of enfolded into the same fact. Correct answers like to play that trick to disguise their similarity. Whereas the original said, "They assured us non-native would be harmless. Now we know that some have become a serious problem.", this answer accomplishes the same feel of They Were Wrong in the Past a different way, saying, "they failed to predict the end of the last recession". It's akin to the original argument conveying what it says in the first two sentences by saying, "The experts who now assure us that genetically engineered plants are harmless are the same experts who failed to anticipate that non-native plants would become a serious problem."

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

   76%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   Children who beg and plead with their parents to buy them trendy toys are the same children who begged for trendy toys last year.

   We hear that the kids begging this year are the same as the kids who begged last year, but we aren't ever told that in the previous instance the kids were wrong to beg.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The population experts who are predicting world food shortages in the next decade are the same ones who have erroneously predicted such shortages in

   The evidence works great. The conclusion should be saying that their current prediction is wrong (since their old prediction was wrong). Their current prediction is that there will be food shortages in the next decade, so the conclusion should sound like: Thus, we won't be seeing any food shortages in the next decade. Instead, it's a conditional statement and it involves the funky concept of the food shortage being caused by the prediction itself.

   4%