Statistical analysis is a common

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match Wrong Validity24% picked this

   Computer modeling is used to try to explain the way in which wind resistance affects the movement of bicycles. To use computer modeling, the

   Since our conclusion is saying wind's affect on bikes can't be explained by computer modeling We would want two premises like this: 3D-rotation is a common tool of computer modeling, but 3D-rotation can't explain wind's affect on bikes. This is actually a valid argument, because it establishes that computer modeling can't explain wind resistance.

   24%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match9% picked this

   The only way to explain how music affects the emotional state of a person is to appeal to the psychology of emotion. The psychology

   I would never make it past "The only way to explain" on this answer choice. There's nothing restrictive like that in the original argument. In fact, the whole flaw of the original argument is the looseness, the fact that "statistical analysis" isn't "the only way to explain", it's just "one common tool for explanation". If we kept reading there are other problems as well, but those first five words are already disqualifying.

   9%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match (Bad Conclusion Match)3% picked this

   The best way to explain why an object has a particular color is in terms of the interaction of light and matter. It is

   I wouldn't make it past the first five words of this one either. We're looking for "a common way to explain", not "the only way" in (B) or "the best way" here in (C). The conclusion is also not tempting us to even read this answer choice, since it doesn't have the form of "X can't be done by Y". It's instead saying "X has nothing to do with Y".

   3%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   To determine which explanation of the origin of the universe is correct, we would need to know about the first moments of the existence

   The premises don't include ideas that would disqualify a certain tool for being used to accomplish a certain goal. There's no tool / method in the premises. And the conclusion isn't of the form "X can't be done by Y". It's of the form "all of the Y's are likely to be wrong."

   5%
5. E

   Correct59% picked this

   A good way to explain historical events is to construct a coherent narrative about those events. In order to construct such a narrative, a

   Why this is right

   This conclusion is saying that Ancient historical events can't be explained by history. The evidence should sound like, "One common tool in history is Y, but Y can't explain ancient historical events". Indeed, - a good way (a common tool) to explain in history is "coherent narrative" - but "coherent narrative" can't explain ancient historical events We would have the same objection we had to the original argument: Just because we can't use "coherent narrative" as a way to provide a historical explanation of ancient events, doesn't historical explanation have any other good ways to explain historical events?

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

   59%