A survey of clerical workers’

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   It attempts to prove a generalization about job performance by using the single example

   Answers saying the author does X by doing Y are claiming that X matches the Conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Was the conclusion a generalization about job performance? No, it's not speaking in general terms. It's specifically saying "these secretaries' positive attitudes produced their excellent job performance".

   4%
2. B

   Not Circular Reasoning5% picked this

   It restates the claim that the secretaries’ positive attitudes produced their excellent job performance instead of

   This answer describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, in which the evidence restates or assumes the truth of the conclusion. There is no restatement of the conclusion. The only claim that says "secretaries' attitudes produced good job performance" is the final claim, the conclusion. (Circular Reasoning answers are wrong at least 95% of the time we see them)

   5%
3. C

   Irrelevant Objection2% picked this

   It does not consider the possibility that secretaries with very positive attitudes toward their work might also have had very

   When an answer begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves, "Would this idea Weaken?" Does it hurt the author's argument to say, "these secretaries with positive attitudes toward their work might have positive attitudes towards other stuff too"? No, not at all. The author doesn't care if they are positive people overall or just positive about their work. He's only saying that their positivity towards their work has the causal effect of making them work better.

   2%
4. D

   Not Equivocation1% picked this

   It uses the term “positive attitudes” to mean two

   This answer describes the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same term or idea two different times, but in two very different ways (while acting like it's the same thing). There's no shifting meaning here to positive attitudes. Every time it's used it means the same thing. (Equivocation answers are wrong 95% of the time we see them)

   1%
5. E

   Correct89% picked this

   It identifies the secretaries’ positive attitudes as the cause of their excellent job performance although their attitudes might be

   Why this is right

   This is one way of describing the famous Causal Flaw, in which an author is overly confident in picking one possible way to explain a curious piece of data. This answer is saying, "from a correlation between X and Y, the author arbitrarily decides that X causes Y, when it might be that Y causes X". In other words, this calls out the possible alternate explanation of Reverse Causality. Maybe the secretaries who get really flattering performance reviews from their supervisors are thereby caused to have more positive attitudes towards their work. Typing word processing documents might seem like boring work, but if you're singled out as being excellent at it, then you might start to derive from self-esteem from your typing skills and have a positive attitude about it.

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

   89%