My father likes turnips,

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Conclusion Match6% picked this

   This book is not a paperback, but it is expensive. So it is not true that

   This conclusion is objecting to the claim that "some P's are E". If it's denying that "some P's are E", then it's trying to prove "All P's are not E". The original conclusion is objecting to the claim that "all P's are T's, so it's trying to prove "some P's are not T". That's reason enough to bail from this answer.

   6%
2. B

   Correct60% picked this

   Although this recently published work of fiction has more than 75 pages, it is not a novel. Thus, it is not the case that

   Why this is right

   This matches up with what we were looking for. The conclusion is trying to disprove a universal, so the author just needs to establish one counterexample. But his evidence provides the negated version of the counterexample we're looking for. CONC: It's not true that anything that's X is Y. (i.e. some X's are not Y) It's not the case that all novels have more than 75. (some novels have 75 or fewer pages) EVID: This example is Y but not X. This thing is more than 75, but not a novel.

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

   60%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   All ornate buildings were constructed before the twentieth century. This house is ornate, so it must be true that it was

   The original conclusion is refuting a universal statement. CONC: It's not true that anything that's X is Y. (i.e. some X's are not Y) This conclusion is affirming a truth about one specific thing: this house was built before the 20th century That's enough of a mismatch to bail.

   1%
4. D

   Valid Logic Bad Evidence Match29% picked this

   Erica enjoys studying physics, but not pure mathematics, which she says is boring. So it is not true that whoever enjoys studying

   This argument isn't flawed. Like the original, its conclusion is refuting a universal. CONC: It's not true that anything that's X is Y. (i.e. some X's are not Y) It's not true that all who enjoy studying physics also enjoy studying math. (i.e. some ppl who enjoy physics don't enjoy math) However, in the original, the evidence presented a counterexample with inverse terms. Instead of saying "this is an example of something that is X but is not Y", it said ... EVID: This example is Y but not X. In this answer choice, the premise is actually the logically valid form. To disprove that "all who enjoy physics also enjoy math" we need an example of someone who enjoys physics but not math. We get just that, thanks to Erica. In order for this answer to match, you'd want the premise to say "Erica enjoys studying math but doesn't enjoy studying physics".

   29%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   People who do their own oil changes are car fanatics. My next-door neighbors are car fanatics, so it follows that they

   The original conclusion is refuting a universal statement. CONC: It's not true that anything that's X is Y. (i.e. some X's are not Y) This conclusion is affirming a truth about one specific thing: my next-door neighbors do their own oil changes. That's enough of a mismatch to bail.

   4%