The student body at this university

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Match16% picked this

   The students at this school take mathematics. Miguel is a student at this school, so

   This is somewhat similar, but there's no collective group that would match up to the Whole like in the original. Saying that "the students at this school" take math sounds more like "each individual student at this school" takes math. That's different from saying "the student body takes a wide range of courses", which is saying, collectively, the students take a wide range of classes. This argument essentially sounds valid. The first sentence is a bit ambiguous. It's not clear whether it's saying "some students / all students" but to the extent that there's a flaw in that ambiguity, it wouldn't be the same flaw as the original argument. When we're dealing with Whole vs. Part, they often throw us trap answers that refers to "a bunch of individuals" (i.e. the students / all the cheerleaders on the squad) when what we're looking for is "a group, a collective" (i.e. the student body / the cheerleading squad).

   16%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   The editorial board of this law journal has written on many legal issues. Louise is on the editorial board, so she has

   Why this is right

   This replicates the original Whole to Part flaw. We have a fact about a Whole (the editorial board). The whole possesses a certain quality (written on many legal issues). Collectively, this editorial board has written on many legal issues. But that doesn't mean that each Part of the editorial board (for instance, Louise) has written on many legal issues. She might be the writer that just handles intellectual property cases. Miriam might be a student that just takes political science classes. But they can still be part of an editorial board or student body that has a more diverse sphere of interest.

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

   79%
3. C

   Part to Whole (reversed)2% picked this

   The component parts of bulldozers are heavy. This machine is a bulldozer, so

   This moves from evidence about Parts to a conclusion about a collective whole. We're trying to match an argument that went from evidence about the Whole to a conclusion about one of the Parts. So this is reversed from what it should be. We refer to the Famous Flaw as Part vs. Whole, but it's really a name for two different flawed moves: - Part to Whole (assuming that a trait belonging to each part therefore belongs to the collective as well) - Whole to Part (assuming that a trait belonging to the collective therefore belongs to each part) Also, this argument is pretty reasonable. When you deal with physical traits like "heavy", then it would be hard to argue that if each part is heavy that the collective could somehow fail to be heavy. Heavy + Heavy = Heavy

   2%
4. D

   Different Flaw0% picked this

   All older automobiles need frequent oil changes. This car is new, so its oil need not

   This has nothing to do with evidence about some collective Whole and then a conclusion about some Part of that whole. The evidence is about a bunch of individual things: all older cars. This argument is committing an Illegal Negation (i.e. Nec vs. Suff). It's giving us a premise that says: older car ? needs frequent OC's And then it's illegally negating that to think, if not old car, then not need frequent OC.

   0%
5. E

   Part to Whole (reversed)2% picked this

   The individual cells of the brain are incapable of thinking. Therefore, the brain as a whole

   This moves from evidence about Parts to a conclusion about a collective whole. We're trying to match an argument that went from evidence about the Whole to a conclusion about one of the Parts. So this is reversed from what it should be. Like (C), this is doing a Part to Whole move, rather than a Whole to Part move. Unlike (C), which was reasonable, this does present a flawed Part to Whole move, but that's still not as good a match as (B), which provides a flawed Whole to Part move just as the original argument did.

   2%