It would be wrong to conclude that

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match7% picked this

   When a person experiences blurred vision, it does not follow that a physical defect in the person’s eyes Is the cause, since blurring of

   This does have the right type of conclusion: You can't conclude X (physical eye defect) on the basis of Y (blurred vision) So the correct premise would say, Because some other thing (Z) is also needed for X to be true. Instead, the premise says, Because some other thing (drugs) can also cause Y.

   7%
2. B

   Correct53% picked this

   Even if a healthy lavender plant receives six or more hours of direct sunlight each day, one cannot predict on that basis alone that

   Why this is right

   This does have the right type of conclusion: You can't conclude X (plant will bloom) on the basis of Y (6+ hrs of sun) So the correct premise would say, Because some other thing (Z) is also needed for X (bloom) to be true. And, indeed, the premise says Because some other thing (alkaline soil) is also needed for bloom.

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

   53%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match5% picked this

   When a bee colony fails to survive the winter, it would be wrong to conclude that low temperatures were the cause. Bees have very

   This does have the right type of conclusion: You can't conclude X (low temps killed them) on the basis of Y (bee colony died) So the correct premise would say, Because some other thing (Z) is also needed for X to be true. Instead, the premise says, X isn't a plausible hypothesis. "Low temps wouldn't kill a colony because they have good defense mechanisms against extreme cold."

   5%
4. D

   No Premise2% picked this

   A female holly plant cannot produce berries without a male plant nearby to provide pollen. But it does not follow that two or more

   This doesn't actually present an argument. It just presents one fact and then presents an unsupported claim that you can't infer a certain something from that fact. You can't conclude X (2+ males near a female will result in more berries than single male) on the basis of Y (females need a male nearby to make berries). There should now be a premise saying, Because some other thing (Z) is also needed for X to be true. But there's nothing else here.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match33% picked this

   A person cannot be presumed to be hypertensive on the basis of a high reading for blood pressure that is exceptional for that person,

   This does have the right type of conclusion: You can't conclude X (hypertensive) on the basis of a single Y (high BP reading for that person) So the correct premise would say, Because some other thing (Z) is also needed for X to be true. Instead, the premise says, A single Y doesn't qualify as X. It's only if you constantly have Y that we call it X. That's an inferior match compared to the correct answer. This doesn't bring in a third factor, it just complains about the frequency of the established factor. This would match the original, if the original had been more like, "You can't conclude Strep infection just because Strep is present. After all, being 10% present isn't enough for infection. It would have to be present almost everywhere to be infection."

   33%