Paulsville and Longtown cannot both be

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match27% picked this

   The chef never has both fresh radishes and fresh green peppers available for the chef’s salad at the same time. If she uses fresh

   We have our mutually exclusive premise (R and GP are mutually exclusive). And we are concluding that one of those won't happen. And we have a fact triggering a conditional: We have the conditional R → S And the fact "no spinach" triggers the contrapositive and gives us "no radishes". But if there aren't radishes then there could be green peppers. We would need the logic to be telling us there definitely will be radishes so that we could fairly conclude there won't be green peppers.

   27%
2. B

   Correct59% picked this

   Tom will definitely support Parker if Mendoza does not apply; and Tom will not support both Parker and Chung. Since, as it turns out,

   Why this is right

   Prem 1: ~X → Y If M doesn't apply, T will support P. Prem 2: ~X. M will not apply. (this implies that T will support P) Prem 3: Y → ~Z T will not support both P and C, so "if T will support P, then T will not support C". Conc: ~Z. T will not support C More conversationally, we have a fact that triggers a conditional: since M will not apply, we know that T will support P. And then we have a mutually exclusive idea: you can't support P and C at the same time. So we get our conclusion. Since T will support P, T will not support C.

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

   59%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   The program committee never selects two plays by Shaw for a single season. But when they select a play by Coward, they do not

   The mutually exclusive premise here is that we'll never have two plays by Shaw selected. So the conclusion should be talking about "not selecting a 2nd Shaw play". Instead, it's talking about not selecting a play by Coward. That would be a quick bird's eye view way to eliminate this. If we dug in more to the details, we would see there is a fact that triggers a conditional: Since the committee selected a play by Shaw, they will not select a play by Coward. Thus, the conclusion is valid, but it doesn't come from using a mutually-exclusive premise. It comes immediately as the outcome of one conditional. ORIGINAL THIS ARGUMENT P1: ~X → Y P1: ~X → Y P2: ~X. P2: ~X. P3: Y → ~Z C: Y. C: ~Z.

   9%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   In agricultural pest control, either pesticides or the introduction of natural enemies of the pest, but not both, will work. Of course, neither will

   As soon as we see that this conclusion is a conditional statement, we can stop reading. The original conclusion was a statement of fact.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   The city cannot afford to build both a new stadium and the new road that would be needed to get there. But neither of

   This is like (C). We get a valid conclusion, but it doesn't come from the same combination of logic as the original. There isn't a fact that triggers a conditional. The fact that "the city will only do worthwhile projects" combines with the claim "neither project is worth doing without the other" to give us the inference that "the city will not undertake just one of those projects. It would have to be both or neither." And then that interacts with the claim that "they can't do both" to allow us to infer that "the city will do neither". So it's valid to say that the city won't build the stadium, but it would also be valid to say that the city won't built the new road. That's not like the original argument. The conclusion was "we won't stop in Longtown", but we couldn't have just as easily concluded "we won't stop in Paulsville". The fact that the city won't do either project without doing the other is the opposite of "mutually exclusive" ... it's the idea of "mutually dependent".

   2%