All historians are able to spot

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct62% picked this

   All expressions used for emotional impact are expressions used by poets. All figures of speech are expressions used for emotional impact. So any expression

   Why this is right

   All three claims are conditional. The two premises chain together. The conclusion does a reversal with the endpoints. prem 1: X ? Y figure of speech ? exp for emotional impact prem 2: Y ? Z exp for emotional impact ? used by poets figure of ? exp for ? used by poets speech emot impact conc: Z ? X used by poets ? figure of speech

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

   62%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

   Political systems whose laws originate in elected legislatures are prone to factionalism. Factionalism leads to civil disorder. Thus political systems not run by autocrats

   Not all three claims are quite conditional. The first sentence is saying "Systems like X are prone to Y", but that doesn't mean X guarantees Y. If we wanted to be charitable, we could say that these two premises still chain together. polit system whose ? factionalism ? civil laws orig in legislature (prone to) disorder If the conclusion were going to match, we would want to hear: "if civil disorder, then political system whose laws originate in elected legislature". Instead, the conclusion says: "if not run by autocrats, tends to be civil disorder"

   7%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match10% picked this

   Animals that possess horns or antlers use them not to attack prey but for intraspecies combat. In fact, animals so equipped never have the

   All three claims are conditional. But the two premises don't chain together. They both have the same trigger idea. possess horns ? not used for prey or antlers but intraspecies combat possess horns ? don't have the claws or antlers or fangs predators have If the premises don't give us an A ? B ? C chain, then we can't possibly replicate the illegal reversal of the original argument's conclusion.

   10%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match12% picked this

   No one without a deep desire to communicate can be a blues musician. So short-story writers, all of whom have that same desire to

   Not all three claims are conditional. The conclusion says "short story writers could have become blues musicians". That's enough of a mismatch to bail. The premises do not form a chain, either blues musician ? deep desire to communicate short story writer ? deep desire to communicate

   12%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match9% picked this

   People living in open and democratic countries have customs that are determined at least in part by an inherited past. But no country’s past

   Not all three claims are conditional. The first premise says "X is determined at least in part by Y". That's not conditional, so we won't get a conditional chain from the two premises, so we won't get a conclusion that is illegally reversing a chain. To the extent that these premises chain somewhat, the conclusion is actually properly going from the beginning of the chain (live in an open and democratic country) to the end (not a product of free choice). The original conclusion went from the end of the chain to the beginning.

   9%