Meyer was found by his

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   Anyone who holds a PhD from the University of Williamstown and is found to have committed academic fraud in the course of pursuing that

   This answer is correctly set up to let us conclude that some "should have their PhD revoked", which is the conclusion we're trying to justify. But the premise half of this answer doesn't match. Meyer was not found to have committed fraud during his PhD, only at his current employer.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   No PhD program at the University of Williamstown will admit any applicant who has been determined to have committed

   This isn't a rule that lets one derive "we should revoke the PhD". This is a rule about who gets admitted, so it would only let you justify a conclusion that sounded like, "Thus, we should not admit Meyer into a PhD program."

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Any University of Williamstown student who is found to have submitted falsified data as academic work will be

   This isn't a rule that lets one derive "we should revoke the PhD". This is a rule about who gets dismissed from the university, so it would only let you justify a conclusion that sounded like, "Thus, we should dismiss Meyer from the university."

   1%
4. D

   Correct91% picked this

   Anyone who holds a PhD from the University of Williamstown and is found to have committed scientific fraud

   Why this is right

   This is a rule that lets us conclude that "we should revoke the PhD". Does it apply to our boy Meyer? Does he hold a PhD from U of Will? Yes. Was he found to have committed scientific fraud? Yes. Since this rule applies to him, it tells us he will have his PhD revoked, which justifies our conclusion. The language of this rule does not specify when the scientific fraud must take place, so it's just a timeless sense of "if someone is (ever) found to commit scientific fraud".

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

   91%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   The University of Williamstown will not hire anyone who is under investigation

   This isn't a rule that lets one derive "we should revoke the PhD". This is a rule about who gets hired, so it would only let you justify a conclusion that sounded like, "Thus, we should not hire Meyer at the U of Will."

   3%