Dana intentionally watered the plant

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Jack stole $10 from Kelly and bet it on a race. The bet returned $100 to Jack. Therefore Jack

   We might keep this on a first pass, since someone committed an action, a result of that action happened, and the author is concluding that the someone really committed that result, in a flawed, dumb way. Ultimately, though, the conclusion isn't a solid match for the idea that "because X's action resulted in a certain consequence, X intended that consequence".

   2%
2. B

   Not a Flaw1% picked this

   Celeste knows that coffee is grown in the mountains in Peru and that Peru is in South America. Therefore Celeste should know that

   This is a pretty reasonable argument. It would be flawed to conclude that Celeste must know the combined implication of her two separate beliefs, but it's pretty reasonable to conclude that she should know the combined implication of her two beliefs.

   1%
3. C

   Correct88% picked this

   The restaurant owner decided to take an item off her restaurant's menu. This decision disappointed Jerry because that item was his favorite dish. Therefore

   Why this is right

   This is a stronger match than A was, because this one, like the original argument, is about transferring over the idea of "intent" from the initial action to some eventual consequence. The owner intentionally took an item off the menu. This happened to cause Jerry's disappointment. Thus, the owner intended to cause Jerry's disappointment.

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

   88%
4. D

   Not a Flaw3% picked this

   The heavy rain caused the dam to break, and the breaking of the dam caused the fields downstream to be flooded. Therefore the heavy

   This just correctly concludes a causal chain. Rain → Dam break. Dam break → Flooding. Thus, Rain → Flooding.

   3%
5. E

   Not a Flaw6% picked this

   The power plant raised the water temperature, and whatever raised the water temperature is responsible for the decrease in fish. Therefore the power plant

   This is pretty sound logic. Power plant raised the temp. Whatever raised the temp is responsible for the fish. So, the power plant is responsible for the fish.

   6%