The druid stones discovered in Ireland

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Equivocation3% picked this

   allows a key term to shift in meaning from one use

   This describes the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same idea/concept twice, but in two different ways. Kevin's parents say he's a responsible person. Yet they claim he's not responsible for the recent arson. Well which is it, Kevin's parents? Is he responsible or not? This argument didn't have a key term with two different meanings. (Answers describing Equivocation, Circular, or Self-Contradiction are almost always wrong)

   3%
2. B

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match10% picked this

   takes the fact that most members of a group have a certain property to constitute evidence that all members of

   This answer almost feels like it's describing Sampling or Part to Whole (both famous flaws), but it's not quite saying either. Any time an answer describes a two part reasoning move, "takes the fact that X to constitute evidence that Y", we can ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and whether Y matches the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "most members of a group have a certain property"? No. It said "all members of a group [druid stones discovered in Ireland] have a certain property [very old]". Does the conclusion say "all members of a group have a property"? No. It says "this stone has a property".

   10%
3. C

   Not Circular5% picked this

   takes for granted the very claim that it sets out

   This describes the famous Circular reasoning flaw, in which the author's evidence restates the conclusion or presumes the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion is saying, "This Scottish druid stone is not super old." Does any premise say, "This Scottish druid stone is not super old"? No. So it's not circular. (Answers describing Equivocation, Circular, or Self-Contradiction are almost always wrong)

   5%
4. D

   Not Temporal Flaw4% picked this

   presumes without justification that what was true of the members of a group in the past will continue to be true

   This describes a semi-famous flaw some people call Temporal Flaw: assuming that was was true in the past will be true again in the future. We can ask ourselves whether the author assumed this: If X was true about ? X will be true about group X before group X again That right side couldn't possibly match our conclusion, because the conclusion isn't about Group X. It's about one Scottish druid stone. The argument wasn't making any more from "in the past, X was true, so in the future X will again be true".

   4%
5. E

   Correct79% picked this

   takes the fact that all members of a group have a certain property to constitute evidence that the members of the group are

   Why this is right

   Again, we have an answer describing a two-part reasoning move: takes the fact that X to constitute evidence that Y X needs to match our Evidence, and Y needs to match a Conclusion the author derived from that. Do we have a premise saying "all members of a group have a certain property"? Yes, "All members of group Irish druid stones have the property very old." Does the author then act like "member of group Irish druid stones are the only things that have the property very old"? Sure. When the author picks up that Scottish druid stone and thinks, "This is not an Irish druid stone. This stone doesn't belong to that group", he then reasons, "So this stone must not share that property of being very, very old. It must be of more recent vintage." This answer is technically still saying, "The author confused a Sufficient condition with a Necessary condition", but it's using disguised wording. "All members have it" is sufficient, whereas "members are the only ones that have it" is necessary.

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

   79%