A study of rabbits

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct77% picked this

   takes for granted that something that has not been proven to be true is for that reason

   Why this is right

   This describes the famous Absence of Evidence flaw. The “something” that has not been proven true is this claim: parthenogenesis sometimes occurs in mammals. The author starts assuming that this is false, that parthenogenesis doesn’t occur in mammals and then her conclusion speculates on why that would be the case.

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

   77%
2. B

   Trap5% picked this

   infers that a characteristic is shared by all nonmammalian vertebrate species merely because it is shared by

   Bad Conclusion Match / Too Strong: “shared by all” Does the author conclude (or assume) that there is some characteristic shared by all nonmammalian vertebrates? Not at all. We hear that parthenogenesis occurs in a wide variety of nonmammals, but that doesn’t mean all nonmammals. Since this first half of the answer choice doesn’t match, there’s no need to keep reading.

   5%
3. C

   Trap7% picked this

   rules out an explanation of a phenomenon merely on the grounds that there is another explanation that can

   Opposite / Out of Scope: “rules out explanation” The author’s conclusion doesn’t rule out an explanation, it offers a possible explanation (i.e maybe mammalian chromosomes make parthenogenesis impossible).

   7%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: Necessary vs. Sufficient5% picked this

   confuses a necessary condition for parthenogenesis with a sufficient condition

   This describes the famous conditional logic flaw of Necessary vs. Sufficient. Was there any conditional logic in the premises for the author to botch? Nope. So this can’t correctly describe the argument. The author might be fairly accused of thinking that being a nonmammal is required for parthenogenesis, but nothing in the argument suggests that being a nonmammal guarantees you do parthenogenesis.

   5%
5. E

   Too Strong: “merely” / Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   assumes that the methods used in a study of one mammalian species were flawed merely because the study's findings cannot be generalized

   The author doesn’t conclude or assume that methods were flawed. She explicitly states that as a premise. Also, she never critiques the one flawed study by saying that it couldn’t be generalized to other species. She critiques it by saying that no other studies have ever been able to replicate it.

   6%