PT111 · S3 · Q21 The new agriculture bill will almost

This does more than nothing, but way less than (A), because the order of the ingredients in this Most claim. As we mentioned in (A), this is the correct way to build an argument with most. Prem: Most A's are B Prem: X is A Conc: X is probably B For example, Most Senators are men. Murphy is a Senator. Thus, Murphy is probably male. Consider how weak the argument becomes if we reverse the relationship of the Most statement to the other premise. Most Senators are men. Murphy is a man. Thus, Murphy is probably a Senator. Before, we were reading the Most statement forward. If I know someone is a Senator, then they are probably a man. Now, this 2nd premise is trying to read the Most statement backwards. Knowing someone is a man does not tell me that they are probably a Senator. This is what the argument provided Most A's are B X is A This bill is unsupported. So, X is probably B This bill probably won't pass. The top line should say what? "Most unsupported bills don't pass" This answer choice, meanwhile, says "Most bills that don't pass are unsupported"

This argument's logic was If the leaders of all major then the bill will parties oppose the bill not pass This answer choice's logic is an illegally inverted version of that. If the leaders of all major then the bill will parties endorse the bill pass

If this answer said that most bill that have passed into law were unanimously supported by the leaders of all major parties, that would strengthen somewhat. We'd think, "Wow, usually a bill that passes has 100% support. Since this new agric bill has 0% support, it doesn't seem like the typical bill that passes. So it probably won't pass." Since this answer is saying most passed bills are not unanimously supported, this is going the wrong direction. If this went all the way to saying, "most passed bills didn't have the support of any major leaders", then it would be a huge weakening idea.

This somewhat increases the plausibility of the conclusion, because this new agriculture bill is not supported by at least one leader, so it were it to pass, it would have a quality that is atypical for bill that pass. But it's a very weak strengthener. It doesn't fit the "Most math" this argument is trying to do. good argument (the bad argument we get here) Most A's are B Most passed bills are supported X is A This new bill is unsupported X is probably B This new bill likely not pass. Returning to our earlier example argument might help demonstrate why this answer is so much weaker than the correct one. Premise: Murphy is a Senator. Premise: ? Conclusion: Murphy is probably male. If we're trying to make the move from "if Senator, then probably male", then we want to know Premise: Murphy is a Senator. Premise: Most Senators are male. Conclusion: Murphy is probably male. Consider how much weaker this argument is, if we make the second premise match this answer choice. Premise: Murphy is a Senator. Premise: Most females are not Senators. Conclusion: Murphy is probably male.