Insurance industry statistics demonstrate that

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match4% picked this

   Since surveys reveal that communities with flourishing public libraries have, on average, better-educated citizens, it follows that good schools are typically found

   The evidence in the original argument isn't about averaging things. The conclusion in the original argument isn't that two things are typically correlated.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Match1% picked this

   Most public libraries are obviously intended to serve the interests of the casual reader, because most public libraries contain large collections of

   The evidence in the original argument doesn't have the structure "Most X's have Ys but not Z." The conclusion in the original argument isn't ascribing intent to Most Xs.

   1%
3. C

   Correct73% picked this

   Studies reveal that people who are regular users of libraries purchase more books per year than do people who do not use libraries regularly.

   Why this is right

   The evidence in the original argument is comparing two groups, saying something is more prevalent in one than the other. In the original, it's "cars with devices get jacked/robbed more often than those without." In C, it's "regular library users buy more books that people who don't use libraries regularly." The conclusion in the original argument is that one thing does not prevent another: "Antitheft devices don't keep cars from being stolen" In C, it's "using libraries regularly doesn't keep patrons from buying books." The logic in the original argument overlooks a meaningful difference between the two things compared in the evidence: cars with antitheft devices are likely nicer/newer than cars without, and therefore more appealing targets for theives. In C, the author overlooks that people who use libraries regularly are likely bigger readers than those who don't use libraries, making them more likely to both use the library AND buy books. The logic in both arguments also fails to consider that without X that supposedly isn't preventing Y, we'd actually have a lot more Y. Without the devices, even more cars might be stolen. Without the library, even more books might be bought.

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

   73%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match18% picked this

   Since youngsters who read voraciously are more likely to have defective vision than youngsters who do not read very much, it follows that children

   The evidence in D looks like a good match, but the conclusion in D doesn't assert that one thing doesn't prevent another. It lacks the Anti-Causal flaw and the Sampling flaw we identified in the original. D is more like a Relative/Absolute flaw: just because kids that don't like to read are less likely to have defective vision relative to voratious readers doesn't mean that more than 50% of non-readers have perfect vision.

   18%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Societies that support free public libraries are more likely to support free public universities than are societies without free public libraries. Hence a society

   The evidence in E looks like a good match, but the conclusion in D doesn't assert that one thing doesn't prevent another. It lacks the Anti-Causal flaw and the Sampling flaw we identified in the original. E is more like a Causal flaw where the author confuses correlation for causation. Just becuse there's a correlation between support for free libraries and free universities doesn't mean that having a free library will cause people to be more supportive of free university.

   4%