Everything that is commonplace and

Answer choices

1. A

   Trigger Doesn't Apply to Premise6% picked this

   Only miracles of nature fail to be ordinary

   Does this help us prove that some things 'fail to catch our attention' and are also 'a miracle of nature'? This answer says that if fails to be ordinary ? then it's a miracle and commonplace of nature The word "only / only if" always indicates a right side (Nec) idea. The premise, which is the only fact we have to build off of, talked about things that are commonplace and ordinary. This conditional rule is talking about things that aren't commonplace and ordinary, so it takes us nowhere.

   6%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   Some things that are ordinary and commonplace are miracles

   Why this is right

   Some statements are reversible, so we can rephrase this idea as: some miracles of nature are ordinary and commonplace. According to the conditional premise, if you're ordinary and commonplace, then you fail to catch our attention. So applying that rule to "some miracles of nature", we get that some miracles of nature fail to catch our attention. Thus, we've proven the conclusion. There are some things that fail to catch our attention that are also miracles of nature. Formally, ANSWER: Some MoN are C&O + PREMISE: All C&O ? FTCA CONCLUSION: Some MoN .... FTCA.

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

   85%
3. C

   Missing New Term2% picked this

   Some things that are commonplace and ordinary fail to catch

   We're trying to logically derive that "some things fail to catch our attention and are also miracles of nature". We have a premise that talks about "fail to catch our attention", but we don't have any facts yet about "miracles of nature". If the answer doesn't give us a fact about "miracles of nature", then we'll never be able to derive the conclusion, which talks about "miracles of nature". I can only derive A = Z if I have facts about both A and Z, A = B B = Y Y = Z If the premise doesn't talk about "miracles" and the answer doesn't talk about "miracles", then there's no way we'll be able to combine those claims and derive a mathematically proven conclusion about "miracles".

   2%
4. D

   Missing New Term3% picked this

   Everything that fails to catch our attention is commonplace

   We're trying to logically derive that "some things fail to catch our attention and are also miracles of nature". We have a premise that talks about "fail to catch our attention", but we don't have any facts yet about "miracles of nature". If the answer doesn't give us a fact about "miracles of nature", then we'll never be able to derive the conclusion, which talks about "miracles of nature". I can only derive A = Z if I have facts about both A and Z, A = B B = Y Y = Z If the premise doesn't talk about "miracles" and the answer doesn't talk about "miracles", then there's no way we'll be able to combine those claims and derive a mathematically proven conclusion about "miracles".

   3%
5. E

   Missing New Term3% picked this

   Only extraordinary or unusual things catch

   We're trying to logically derive that "some things fail to catch our attention and are also miracles of nature". We have a premise that talks about "fail to catch our attention", but we don't have any facts yet about "miracles of nature". If the answer doesn't give us a fact about "miracles of nature", then we'll never be able to derive the conclusion, which talks about "miracles of nature". I can only derive A = Z if I have facts about both A and Z, A = B B = Y Y = Z If the premise doesn't talk about "miracles" and the answer doesn't talk about "miracles", then there's no way we'll be able to combine those claims and derive a mathematically proven conclusion about "miracles".

   3%