A nationwide poll of students,

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   The argument confuses a mere coincidence with a

   This describes the famous Correlation vs. Causality distinction, but this argument is messing up the Percentage vs. Amount distinction. There is no correlation described nor any causality in the conclusion.

   2%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on a program with the overall amount

   Why this is right

   The author thinks that "if we add new money to the budget, we shouldn't give any to student counseling, because over 90% think that an appropriate amount is already going to student counseling." But the poll says that an appropriate percentage is going to student counseling. Hence, if people approve of X% of the budget going to student counseling, then they would want for X% of any additional budget funding to go to student counseling.

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

   74%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw11% picked this

   The argument fails to justify its presumption that what is true of a part of the budget is also

   This describes the famous Part vs. Whole distinction, but this argument is messing up the Percentage vs. Amount distinction. This would match had the author's argument sounded like, "Since over 90% approve of the % we spend on student counseling, it must be that over 90% approve of the budget overall."

   11%
4. D

   Doesn't Weaken1% picked this

   The argument fails to consider the possibility that money could be saved by training students

   "Fails to consider" answers only work if they give us a possible objection to the argument. Saying that we could save money by training students as peer counselors actually goes with the author's conclusion that we shouldn't spend more money on student counseling.

   1%
5. E

   Doesn't Fail to Consider12% picked this

   The argument fails to consider that if more money is spent on a program, then more money cannot also

   It seems like the author is specifically considering that, since she's being cautious about how any new money would get spent (considering opportunity cost, implicitly). Either way, this idea doesn't weaken the the argument. The author would agree to this idea, and reiterate her faulty logic that "right, and since 90% approve of [what we're spending] on student counseling currently, we shouldn't squander precious money by giving counseling more, when that limits our ability to give it to other programs."

   12%