Some statisticians claim that the

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct40% picked this

   presumes, without providing any justification, that the surest way of increasing the overall correctness of the total set of one’s beliefs must

   Why this is right

   When Flaw answers start with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves whether the author was really assuming the idea that follows. Since this idea is conditional, we could look at it conditionally and see if it matches a move the author made: IF a way of increasing THEN it's not overall correctness of → the surest way belief set hinders ability to survive Yes, the author did make this assumption. The left side matches the evidence and the right side matches the conclusion. Even if we weren't clear on how to match up this conditional assumption with the author's reasoning move, we still might just pick this answer from its general gist of, "this author is assuming that the surest way of increasing correctness has anything to do with its effects on survival."

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

   40%
2. B

   Not an Objection45% picked this

   neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians’ rule, one might also accept new beliefs when presented

   The author does neglect this possibility, but only because it's self-contradictory. This wouldn't be a way for us to object to the author: "Hey, you failed to consider this self-contradictory idea!" The statisticians' rule explicitly said that we would never change our set of beliefs except by rejecting beliefs. So it is impossible to follow the statisticians' rule while also accepting new beliefs.

   45%
3. C

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that some large sets of beliefs are more correct overall than are some

   When Flaw answer choices start off with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would be an objection to the logic. Could we hurt this argument by saying, "Even though following this rule would mean an ever-decreasing number of beliefs, and you need many beliefs to survive, this rule still is the surest way to increase overall correctness because ... at least one large set of beliefs is more correct overall than at least one small set of beliefs"? That doesn't sound like a good objection. And it's very, very rarely the case that a correct weakening idea would be as weak as "some".

   3%
4. D

   Too Strong: should accept4% picked this

   takes for granted that one should accept some beliefs related to survival even when given

   This author is only thinking "we shouldn't get rid of all these false beliefs, because then we'll end up with fewer and fewer beliefs, and we need many beliefs to survive." She isn't assuming that "we should add some false beliefs".

   4%
5. E

   Too Strong9% picked this

   takes for granted that the beliefs we need in order to have many beliefs must

   Too Strong: must all Opposite, if anything The author is saying "we can't reject all these false beliefs, because then we'll have fewer and fewer beliefs, and we need many beliefs to survive". So if anything, the author seems to be thinking we should retain these false beliefs for the sake of our survival, which is the opposite of what this answer accuses her of assuming. Even if this weren't going the opposite direction, we wouldn't feel comfortable accusing the author of assuming something as strong as "all the beliefs must be X".

   9%