Bank deposits are credited on the

Answer choices

1. A

   Misses 2nd Flaw12% picked this

   Journalists are the only ones who will be permitted to ask questions at the press conference. Since Marjorie is a journalist, she

   This has the illegal reversal ("the only" is a sufficient indicator, unlike the much more common "only / only if" which are necessary indicators). But it doesn't have a person's thoughts taking us from right side to left side. P1: A ? B Q ? J P2: X knows B. X is a J. C: X knows A. X is a Q.

   12%
2. B

   Misses 2nd Flaw23% picked this

   We know that Patrice works only on Thursday. Today is Thursday, so it follows that

   This has the illegal reversal ("only / only if" are necessary indicators). But it doesn't have a person's thoughts taking us from right side to left side. It just has "we know" around the conditional (also, the flaw won't really be a flaw if we put a we know on all these ideas. It's only a flaw when we're talking about someone else and we're not sure that they know all the relevant information you'd need to derive the implication we accuse them of). P1: A ? B We know "W ? Th" P2: X knows B. Today is Th. C: X knows A. Today is W.

   23%
3. C

   Correct59% picked this

   It is clear that George knows he will be promoted to shift supervisor, because George will be promoted to shift supervisor only if Helen

   Why this is right

   This has the illegal reversal ("only / only if" are necessary indicators). And it has the second flaw where we go from right side to left side acting like "If someone has This belief, they have That belief". P1: A ? B SS ? HR P2: X knows B. G knows HR. C: X knows A. G knows SS.

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

   59%
4. D

   Misses 1st Flaw2% picked this

   John believes that 4 is a prime number and that 4 is divisible by 2. Hence John believes that there is a

   This has the illegal "implication of belief" flaw, but not the illegal Necessary vs. Sufficient reversal. There's no conditional logic for it to mess up. P1: A ? B J knows X is A. P2: X knows B. J knows X is B. C: X knows A. J knows "some A are B"

   2%
5. E

   Misses First Flaw4% picked this

   Pat wants to become a social worker. It is well known that social workers are poorly paid. Pat apparently

   This definitely doesn't have any reversal. I don't even really want to call "it's well known that social workers are poorly paid" a conditional, but we could certainly construe it as Social Worker ? Poorly Paid Even so, the argument doesn't go from poorly paid to social worker. It says "Pat wants social worker", so "Pat wants poorly paid". This is fairly close to being the 2nd flaw, although this is less about assuming an implication of someone's belief, and more about "Just because they want X doesn't mean they want every causal ramification of X." Given that there's no conditional logic reversal, though, we don't need to think hard about that.

   4%