Journal editor: Our treasurer advises

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct71% picked this

   treats meeting a necessary condition for changing from a paper to an online version as a

   Why this is right

   This names the (#1) famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise, Should change to online ? Won't increase Costs and then reasons via that rule in an illegal backwards or opposite fashion. This author argued that, "Since it won't increase costs, we should change to online". That is switching "won't increase costs" from the Necessary (right) side to the Sufficient (left) side. Or in conversational terms, the author is acting like as long as it's doesn't raise costs that's a good enough reason to switch. In doing so, the author is failing to consider other possible reasons (besides an increase in costs) that we might not want to switch.

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

   71%
2. B

   Not Assumed: the reason4% picked this

   takes for granted that publishing a paper version rather than an online version is the reason the journal is

   This author isn't assuming anything about the causal backstory of why they're in a precarious financial situation. It could be because people don't want to buy a physical paper version. It could be that minimum wages have increased which raised their overhead. It could be that sponsors pulled out, etc. The author is assuming that publishing an online version will not make our financially precarious position worse, but she doesn't need to believe the reason we're financially struggling is because we have a paper version.

   4%
3. C

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that an online version would have other advantages over a paper

   The author is overlooking that an online version would have disadvantages over a paper version. That would be an objection, because that would help us argue against the conclusion. But if we say, "Hey, author --- the online version has other advantages, too", that just strengthens her conclusion that we should switch to online.

   2%
4. D

   Not an Objection21% picked this

   fails to rule out the possibility that the journal will remain in a precarious financial position whether it changes to

   Does it hurt the author to say, "Hey, author -- even if we change to online, we'll still be in a financially precarious position"? Not really, because the author was never selling us on switching to online as a solution to our financial problem. The author was thinking that we can't make the switch if it would be a financial burden, but she isn't arguing that we should make the switch because it will be a financial solution.

   21%
5. E

   Not Inappropriate Appeal3% picked this

   bases its conclusion on the argument of an authority speaking outside the authority's

   This refers to one of the top 10 famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeal (to Emotion, Fear, or Dubious Expertise). Are any of the evidentiary claims an attribution to someone else's beliefs? Yes! We are using the testimony of the treasurer as one of the premises. Is that treasurer speaking outside their field of expertise? No. They are talking about what financial position this organization is in, which is precisely a treasurer's field of expertise.

   3%