Only a minority of those

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct70% picked this

   Most scholars are not motivated by a desire to win prestigious academic prizes. Thus, some of those who want to win prestigious

   Why this is right

   We can match this up, but we do need to demonstrate an understanding of how to re-write negative statements in their positive form. Any time we see any of these three negatives on the left we're supposed to be re-writing them as the positive form on the right No A's are B = All A's are not B Few A's are B = Most A's are not B Not all A's are B = Some A's are not B CONC: Some A's are not B some [prize-wanters] are not [scholars] EVID: Only a minority of B's are A (i.e. most B's are not A) most [scholars] are not [prize-wanters] Just as the original argument was flawed because it's conclusion talks about people who don't engage in political action, but it's evidence only talks about people who do engage in political action, this argument is flawed because it's conclusion talks about not scholars but it's evidence only talks about scholars.

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

   70%
2. B

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Only foolish politicians disregard the wishes of most voters. Thus, most voters deserve to be

   Neither one of these ingredients matches structurally. In the original argument, the premise was a Few / Most type claim. Here it's a conditional. In the original, the conclusion was a Some claim. Here it's a Most claim. Each of those mismatches is enough to get rid of this. The premise tries to fool people into thinking there's a match by using the word only, but it's being used completely differently from how the premise uses it. "only a minority of A's are B" = most A's are not B "only A's do B" = if you're B, then you're A

   2%
3. C

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Some corporations only feign a concern for the environment when they advertise a product as environmentally friendly. Thus, no corporation has a

   Neither one of these ingredients matches structurally. In the original argument, the premise was a Few / Most type claim. Here it's a Some statement. In the original, the conclusion was a Some claim. Here it's a No / All claim. Each of those mismatches is enough to get rid of this.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match12% picked this

   Some parents show no interest in the curricula used in the schools that their children attend. Thus, some of the decisions regarding school curricula

   In the original argument, the premise was a Few / Most type claim. Here it's a Some claim. That's good enough reason to bail. In addition, the Conclusion isn't recycling the ideas from the Premise, as the original conclusion did (it just moved around the concepts of engage in political action and sense of social justice). Instead, it's introducing brand new concepts, like "decisions about curricula" and "without regard for wishes".

   12%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match11% picked this

   Only a small percentage of the profits that companies make are directly attributable to good management decisions. Thus, even companies that are managed

   In the original argument, the conclusion was a Some claim. Here it's a Few / Most type claim, because "usually" means Most. If our conclusion were "some companies that are managed badly will turn a profit", then we would want the premise to say "only a minority of companies that are unprofitable are managed badly".

   11%