Faden: Most of our exercise

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong4% picked this

   Greenwall takes for granted that many customers have stopped using the equipment but are too

   Is Greenwall assuming that many customers have stopped using the equipment but are too embarrassed to admit it? No. Greenwall is saying it's a possibility. She isn't assuming it's a fact. The effect of Greenwall's objection is simply to say, "since this alternate explanation is possible, it would be hasty to conclude your interpretation, Faden, which is that all these customers are telling the truth."

   4%
2. B

   Too Strong: most12% picked this

   Greenwall presumes, without giving justification, that most people are dishonest about

   This is way too broad and strong. Greenwall doesn't say anything about most people, so she hasn't made any assumptions about most people. Many = at least a handful (we could say at least 5, even though that number is made up) Most = more than 50%

   12%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything2% picked this

   Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the more conclusive the evidence is for a claim, the less

   Faden seems to assume that the less conclusive the evidence is for a claim, the less believable the claim becomes. Even this, though, would not be correct. We wouldn't accuse Faden of assuming this very strong Volume Dial type idea (less conclusive = less believable). Faden's statements are using absolute language, not relative language. Faden assumes "if there is no evidence, then the claim is absurd".

   2%
4. D

   Correct77% picked this

   Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence

   Why this is right

   This is a conditional idea ("unless"), so we can diagram it and ask ourselves whether Faden made such a reasoning move: if evidence has not then evidence hasn't been proven false ? been undermined This doesn't seem tempting to me on a first glance, but ultimately since all the other answers are bad, we'd have to revisit this one and think about how it could actually work. Faden was trying to show that most of their machines were still in use one year later. Faden's evidence was a survey in which most respondents said their equipment was still in use a year later. Greenwall does try to undermine that evidence somewhat by saying, "Whoa -- can we really trust that the survey tells the truth? Isn't it possibly that many customers would lie about still using the equipment because they'd be ashamed to admit they bought the equipment and quit exercising?" Faden's final claims are trying to prove that Greenwall's objection is absurd. In other words, Greenwall was objecting to the trusthworthiness of Faden's evidence, and Faden is arguing that this objection is ridiculous, "You haven't undermined by survey evidence. Your objection is absurd. After all, you have no way of showing/proving that my survey provided false information." So, yes, we can say that Faden's reasoning was, "Since you can't prove that my survey contains any lies, then you haven't undermined the trustworthiness of my survey."

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

   77%
5. E

   Not an Objection6% picked this

   Greenwall ignores the possibility that some people stopped using the equipment but were not

   Since this answer uses the fails to consider / ignores the possibility prefix, we assess it like a Weaken idea. Does it hurt Greenwall if we say, "Some people stopped using the equipment and weren't embarrassed about it"? No, it doesn't. Greenwall wasn't committed to the idea that everyone who stopped using the equipment would be embarrassed; she was only saying that it's possible that many who stopped using it would be embarrassed.

   6%