If a mother's first child

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   Artisans who finish their projects before the craft fair will probably go to the craft fair. Ben will not finish his project before the

   We're looking for this structure P1: X ? probably Y P2: this thing was not Y. C: so, this thing was probably not X We get a premise saying Finish before ? probably Go X Y The next premise should be talking about someone who did not go to the craft fair. But instead it's saying about someone who did not finish before. Since the second premise is talking about ~X rather than about ~Y, we know this is hopeless.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   All responsible pet owners are likely to be good with children. So anyone who is good with children is

   We're looking for this structure P1: X ? probably Y P2: this thing was not Y. C: so, this thing was probably not X This argument only has one premise, so we know it's wrong. And the conclusion is a conditional ("anyone"), while the conclusion of the original argument wasn't a conditional. It just said "J's first kid was probably born early".

   3%
3. C

   Correct91% picked this

   If a movie is a box-office hit, it is likely that its sequel will be also. Hawkman II, the sequel to Hawkman I, was

   Why this is right

   We're looking for this structure P1: X ? probably Y P2: this thing was not Y. C: so, this thing was probably not X We get a premise saying Box office hit ? probably Sequel Hit X Y The next premise should be talking about a Sequel that was not a hit, and then concluding something about the first one not being a box office hit. That's exactly what it does. P1: X ? probably Y hit ? probably sequel hit P2: this thing was not Y. Hawkman did not have a sequel hit. C: so, this thing was probably not X Hawman was probably not a hit.

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

   91%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   If a business is likely to fail, people will not invest in it. Pallid Starr is likely to fail, therefore no one

   We're looking for this structure P1: X ? probably Y P2: this thing was not Y. C: so, this thing was probably not X We get a premise saying Likely to fail ? won't invest X Y This is already bad because the outcome isn't in probabilistic form. But even if we played along, the next premise should be talking about something where people WILL invest and then concluding that something was not likely to fail. But instead the premise is talking about something that is Likely to Fail. Since the second premise is talking about X rather than about ~Y, we know this is hopeless.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   Tai will go sailing only if the weather is nice. The weather will be nice, thus Tai

   We're looking for this structure P1: X ? probably Y P2: this thing was not Y. C: so, this thing was probably not X We get a premise saying Go Sailing ? Weather Nice X Y Once again, it's probably hopeless since there's nothing probabilistic in this conditional. But we would also know it's wrong when the second premise is saying the weather WILL be nice, whereas we're looking for ~Y.

   1%