Councillor Miller opposes all proposals

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match7% picked this

   Tara finds Ms. Burke's English class, which has paper assignments but no exams, easier than Mr. Kent's English class, which has exams but no

   We don't really have the right type of ideas to start matching this one up. There's no "Entity 1 always rejects X. Entity 2 likes Y." There's just a premise that says "Entity 1 thinks this thing is more X than that thing."

   7%
2. B

   Correct70% picked this

   Jane refuses to live downtown. Denise wants to rent a penthouse apartment. It follows that Jane will not rent one of the penthouse apartments

   Why this is right

   - Entity 1 always rejects X. Jane rejects downtown. - Entity 2 likes Y. Denise likes renting penthouse. - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2. Joilet (rhymes-with-Toilet) Towers downtown apartment complex will be rejected by Jane but accepted by Denise This commits the same flaw with the 2nd person -- they're broadly in favor of renting a penthouse, but that doesn't mean we can be sure they endorse this specific penthouse rental.

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

   70%
3. C

   Only One Premise6% picked this

   Mayor Watson promised never to support an increase in public transportation fares in Johnsonville. It follows that Mayor Watson will oppose the new proposal

   The easiest way to see this can't match is that there's only one premise. The formula we're trying to match needs two premises, because we need to hear about one entity rejecting something and another entity broadly endorsing a different thing. ORIGINAL Prem 1- Entity 1 always rejects X. Prem 2 - Entity 2 likes Y. Conc - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2.

   6%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion Match15% picked this

   Ed dislikes any food that is extremely sweet, but Bill likes most extremely sweet food. It follows that Ed will dislike these extremely sweet

   This has some promise. - Entity 1 always rejects X. Ed dislikes very sweet food. - Entity 2 likes Y. Bill likes most very sweet food. - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2. these very sweet brownies will be disliked by Ed and probably liked by Bill. That's super close, but the conclusion differs in strength/certainty from that of the original. Saying that Bill will probably like the brownies is a more responsible, less flawed conclusion than saying Bill will definitely like the brownies. The original argument's conclusion was flawed because it was TOO CERTAIN that CP would endorse this specific proposal to increase school funding. It didn't say, as it should have, that "CP will probably support CC's proposal."

   15%
5. E

   Only One Premise1% picked this

   In the past, the citizens of Lake County have voted down every proposal to increase property taxes. It follows that citizens of Lake County

   The easiest way to see this can't match is that there's only one premise. The formula we're trying to match needs two premises, because we need to hear about one entity rejecting something and another entity broadly endorsing a different thing. ORIGINAL Prem 1- Entity 1 always rejects X. Prem 2 - Entity 2 likes Y. Conc - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2.

   1%