On the basis of the available

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match5% picked this

   That a given position is widely believed to be true is taken to show that the position in question

   Because of this answer's structure "that X is taken show that Y" means that X is supposed to refer to Evidence and Y to the Conclusion. In this argument, "Chris is a boy. Thus he must like football", we could say that the flaw in this argument was this: that Chris is a boy is taken to show that he is a football fan So does this answer choice match up with our argument? Was there a premise that said a given position is widely believed to be true? No, there was a background claim that said it's widely believed to be true that "Antarctica was covered by ice for the past 14 million years". Did the author conclude that this claim must be true? No, the opposite. Her conclusion is actually saying it must be false, that the ice sheet must have temporarily melted 3 million years ago.

   5%
2. B

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match9% picked this

   That either of two things could independently have produced a given effect is taken to show that those two things could not have operated

   This has the same structure as (A), so we're trying to match the first half with the evidence and the second half of the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "either of two things could have independently produced a given effect"? Sure, it said that either volcano or climatic warming could have independently produced a melting of the ice sheet. Does the conclusion then say that, "those two things could not have operated in conjunction to produce that effect?" No. The conclusion just says "that effect must have occurred" (the ice sheet must have melted) This answer would hurt an argument that sounded like this: Bernadette's perfume and Bernadette's dress each would made Tyrone attracted to her. Thus, Tyrone was not attracted to the combo of her perfume and her dress.

   9%
3. C

   Bad Description22% picked this

   Establishing that a certain event occurred is confused with having established the cause

   The author is trying to establish that a certain event occurred (the ice sheet temporarily melted 3 million years ago). The author brings up a couple causal possibilities for how that would have happened, although the primary evidence for it having happened is the fossils discovered under the ice sheet. This answer is saying, "Just because we know the event occurred doesn't mean we know that caused the event". That objection wouldn't be relevant to the author's argument since she isn't claiming to know what caused it (bring up possible things that could have caused it is not claiming to know what one thing did cause it). We might re-write this answer as a more successful one by saying, establishing that things could have cause an event is confused with establishing that the event actually occurred But it would still be a poor answer because the author's primary evidence are the fossils, not his ruminating about what what might have caused the ice sheet to melt.

   22%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw5% picked this

   A claim that has a very general application is based entirely on evidence from a narrowly

   This refers to the famous Sampling Flaw, but we can't match that to this argument. Could we call the conclusion "a claim that has a very general application"? Not really -- the conclusion is a specific claim that "about 3 million years ago, the ice sheet temporarily melted".

   5%
5. E

   Correct58% picked this

   An inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution is treated as though only

   Why this is right

   "X is treated as though Y" indicates that X is our evidence and we treated it as though it shows that our conclusion Y is true. Did the evidence feature an inconsistency that, as presented, has more than one possible resolution? Sure, we found fossils under an ice sheet that had previously only been found in ocean-floor sediments. The place we found these new fossils is inconsistent with the place where we have previously always found this type of fossils. Does the author treat this as though only one resolution is possible? Yes, she concludes that the ice sheet must have melted (i.e. this part of Antarctica must have been underwater at the time this animal died). Is there more than one possible resolution? Yes, as discussed before, maybe a bird dropped it, maybe a hurricane flung it, maybe it was amphibian and crawled there, maybe it swam through an ice sheet tunnel, etc. If we wanted to customize this to our vernacular, this answer is just saying "A Curious Fact that, as presented, has more than one possible explanation is treated as though only the author's explanation is possible."

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

   58%