Advertiser: Most TV shows

Answer choices

1. A

   Weaker Evidence Match26% picked this

   If a TV show that one feels to be worth preserving would be canceled unless one took certain actions, then one

   This is saying "If a show is worth preserving AND a show would be canceled if you didn't take a certain action, you should take that action". The outcome is a decent match for "you should buy the advertised stuff". Does the trigger match the evidence? Were we told that "if you don't buy the advertised stuff, the show will be canceled"? Ooooh, reaaally close but not quite. We were told that "if people generally don't buy the advertised stuff, the show will be canceled". One person not-buying the stuff isn't enough to get the show canceled, so we can't actually trigger this rule.

   26%
2. B

   Correct56% picked this

   If a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions, then everyone who feels that the show is worth

   Why this is right

   This is saying "If a show would be canceled if many people didn't take a certain action, then everyone who feels the show is worth preserving should take that action." This is a better fit than (A). There's technically a quantifier mismatch between saying "many people don't buy the advertised stuff" and saying "most people don't buy the advertised stuff". (e.g. it's true that "many U.S. senators are women" but it's not true that "most U.S. senators are women", because most specifically means more than half) But this is still the best available answer. We were told that if most people didn't buy the advertised products, then the show would get canceled, which essentially triggers this rule, and allows us to say something very similar to the conclusion: anyone who thinks this show is worth keeping better buy that advertised stuff.

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

   56%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   If a TV show is worth preserving, then everyone should take whatever actions are necessary to prevent that

   We'll never be able to trigger this rule, because the evidence never talked about specific shows that ARE worth preserving. It's just trying to tell people who FEEL a show is worth preserving, that they should buy the advertised stuff. This also gets a little sloppy in the sense that we can't say "it's necessary for person X to buy the advertised stuff to prevent that show from being canceled". Instead, it's necessary for "most viewers of the show to buy the advertised stuff", and no single person can take the action of "most viewers buy the stuff".

   3%
4. D

   Weaker Conclusion Match11% picked this

   If one feels that a TV show is worth preserving, then one should take at least some actions to reduce the likelihood

   The trigger of this rule has nothing to do with the evidence (it's just borrowing wording from the conclusion). And the outcome of this rule is too weak to force us to buy the advertised stuff. It could just force us to take at least ONE action that makes it less likely the show will be canceled (but that action doesn't necessarily have to be buying the advertised products). Buying the products advertised on the show you like would probably reduce the likelihood of that show being canceled. But maybe telling your friends to watch the show would also reduce the likelihood of that show being canceled.

   11%
5. E

   Weaker Conclusion Match4% picked this

   If a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions, then those who feel most strongly that it is

   This is super similar to (B) and would be be pseudo-triggered the same way (again, we're forgiving the many vs. most mismatch). But the outcome here matches the conclusion worse than the outcome of (B). This rule only forces those who feel most strongly that a show is worth preserving to take action, whereas (B) is forcing everyone who thinks the show is worth preserving to take action, which aligns more with the argument's conclusion.

   4%