Only if a family manages

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   Without continued use of pesticides it is not possible to grow enough food for the world's people. But only when researchers develop pesticides harmless

   Why this is right

   Prem 1: X ? Y growing ? continued use enough food (requires) of pesticides Prem 2: A ? B persistent health ? develop pesticides problems reduced (req's) harmless to humans Conc: X or A ? Y or B enough food produced pesticides continue or ? or persistent HP's reduced develop harmless p's This argument also provided two conditional premises, and the conclusion again was saying "if either one of these triggers is true, then one or more of these outcomes must be true".

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

   72%
2. B

   Weak Conclusion Match8% picked this

   Reasonably healthy people who wish to lose weight must alter their balance of caloric intake and caloric burn off. But without benefit of medical

   The original argument's conclusion was a conditional with an "or" in the trigger. This conclusion has an "and" in the trigger. We would write the conclusion like this: wishes to lose weight should seek and ? medical guidance doesn't want to risk HP's b4 begin program That's enough to disqualify this answer. For what it's worth the two premises were like this: wish to lose weight alter balance of and ? caloric intake reasonably healthy and burn off drastic change in diet or exercise ? harmful and no medical supervision By seeing these conditionals, we can further confirm how off the conclusion is. Its trigger should be a combination of these two triggers, and its outcome should be a combination of the two outcomes.

   8%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match12% picked this

   Many popular, low-maintenance houseplants are available. Yet some of these plants, because they are toxic, are unsuitable for homes where pets are kept indoors.

   The conclusion is a conditional with an "or" trigger and an "or" outcome, so it's worth investigating. But neither of the premises are conditional claims (many, some), so we can bail from this.

   12%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   Only employees who work diligently will be retained in this company until they are eligible for retirement. Also, we can retain only those employees

   The original conclusion was a conditional with an "or" in the trigger and an "or" in the outcome. This conclusion is a conditional without only one idea in the trigger, and with an "and" in the outcome. That's enough reason to bail, given that we already have an answer that has a matching conclusion. We might also notice that the trigger in the conclusion "redesign process is carried out" was not the trigger of either one of the premises' conditionals.

   6%
5. E

   Weak Conclusion Match3% picked this

   A successful charity drive requires detailed planning. Volunteers must be recruited and trained, and equipment and facilities must be prepared months before the drive

   The original conclusion was a conditional with an "or" in the trigger and an "or" in the outcome. This conclusion is a conditional without only one idea in the trigger, but it does have an "or" in the outcome. If we'd already seen (A), we probably wouldn't look any deeper than that and would just bail. If we look deeper, we notice that the trigger in the conclusion "organizing a charity drive" was not the trigger of either one of the premises' conditionals. So it definitely doesn't match.

   3%