Advertisement: Our oat bran cereal

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Quite Circular7% picked this

   Greeting one’s coworkers must be a polite thing to do, because people who are considered polite always greet their coworkers. The proof that these

   Our author provides the conditional that people considered polite always greet coworkers, considered polite ? greet coworkers And then she reasons that "if greeting coworkers, must be polite" But the proof that they're polite is not a circular argument. It's a detail about their consistency of being polite in other contexts. This argument contains a distinction between considered polite and really are polite. The original argument didn't play off some distinction between considered health-conscious and really are health-conscious.

   7%
2. B

   Correct82% picked this

   This card game must be intellectually challenging, because it is played by highly intelligent people, who play only intellectually challenging card games. In fact,

   Why this is right

   Here we're trying to prove that a game is intellectually challenging. We're given a rule that says played by highly ? intellectually challenging intelligent people game Okay, do we know the people who play it are highly intelligent? The author offers support for that in the final sentence: play this game ? highly intelligent This structurally is not a perfect match for the original, but it seems to be vulnerable to a similar objection of circularity. Why should we accept this premise that "playing this game demonstrates you're intelligent". The author would say "because this card game is intellectually challenging", but that would be the author presuming the truth of the conclusion as evidence (i.e. circular reasoning). In the original argument, we're asking why we should accept the premise that "the people who bought this cereal are health-conscious", and the author is like "because they bought something that has accurate information on the label", but that would be the author presuming the truth of her conclusion as evidence. (The original argument does have a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw that this answer doesn't. It's trying to prove "health-conscious" with a rule that can only prove "not health conscious", but that doesn't get captured in this answer. Overall, I would have to rank this argument / answer choice in the Top 3 LR problems for which I genuinely do not understand if I get what the test writers were going for (I can't tell if I'm wrong about the mistakes I think they made in writing this problem or if they were aware of those mistakes and didn't care).

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

   82%
3. C

   Missing the Circular3% picked this

   When coffee is being chosen, Brand Z is the coffee chosen by people with highly developed taste in coffee. These people showed their highly

   Brand Z was chosen by people with great taste. How do we know? If this matched the original, it would say something like "only people with great taste would buy this coffee". Instead, it says, "we know because they performed really accurately in a taste test.

   3%
4. D

   Missing the Circular3% picked this

   That jacket must have been made for a very short person, because only very short people were able to fit into it. We know

   Nothing in here regurgitates an idea in that circular style. It contains three unique ideas. - made for a short person - only short people could fit in it - we saw them before they tried it on Circular would sound like "that jacket must have been made for a very short person, because only a very short person would have a jacket like that made for them".

   3%
5. E

   Missing the Circular5% picked this

   This painting is a poor imitation, because only people with poor eyesight mistook it for the original. That these people have poor eyesight is

   How do we know that the people who mistook the painting for an original have poor eyesight? If this were matching the original, it would say "that they have poor eyesight is demonstrated by the fact that they mistook this painting for an original". Instead, it provides a distinct idea bout mistaking a vase of flowers for a peacock.

   5%