Vanwilligan: Some have argued that

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal: fairest system5% picked this

   The fairest economic system for a society is one in which the values of most goods and services are determined

   We need a rule that says, "If xyz, then fair" that we can apply to these athletes' salaries. This is a rule that you could apply to an economic system, in order to conclude that the economic system is / isn't the fairest. There's nothing in this rule about salaries.

   5%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   If professional athletes were paid less for their services, then the teams for which they play would not

   If it's not a rule that says "if xyz, then fair", then it's totally useless to us. We need to combine our answer choice with the evidence in order to mathematically derive, "these salaries are fair". The evidence never mentions or defines "fair", so the answer choice will have to.

   3%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   The high level of competition in the marketplace forces the teams’ owners to pay professional

   If it's not a rule that says "if xyz, then fair", then it's totally useless to us. We need to combine our answer choice with the evidence in order to mathematically derive, "these salaries are fair". The evidence never mentions or defines "fair", so the answer choice will have to.

   3%
4. D

   Correct71% picked this

   Any salary that a team owner is willing to pay for the services of a professional athlete

   Why this is right

   This has the form "If xyz, then fair". if team owner is willing to then the pay salary X for the ? salary is fair services of a pro athlete Do we know that team owners are willing to pay the salaries of these pro athletes? Yes, we have a premise saying "owners are willing to pay them extraordinary salaries". So according to this rule, those salaries are fair. Thus, combining this answer with the evidence has allowed us to logically derive the conclusion. Formally, the Conclusion is creating this logic path: Salaries -------------------------------------> fair The evidence provides one part of the path Salaries --> owners willing to pay them The correct answer provides the other part. owners willing ----------> fair to pay them

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

   71%
5. E

   Reversed Logic18% picked this

   If a professional athlete’s salary is fair, then that salary is determined by what an individual is willing to pay for the athlete’s

   We're looking for a rule that allows us to prove that something is fair, so we want something that's like "if xyz, then fair". This answer says "If fair, then xyz". That's useless to us. If we reversed the order of these two ideas, this answer would be fine, What we know is that the salaries are determined by what others are willing to pay. What we want to prove is that the salaries are fair. So we need a rule that takes us from what we know to what we're trying to prove. This reversed answer says, "If your conclusion happens to be right, then this second idea would definitely be true". Suppose we knew that Bob is an NBA star, and we wanted to prove that this means Bob is rich. Which of these rules do we want: 1. if you're rich, then you're definitely an NBA star 2. if you're an NBA star, then you're definitely rich 3. both Only #2 works. It takes us from what we know about Bob to what we're trying to prove about Bob.

   18%