Superconductor development will enable

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct76% picked this

   It is a conclusion for which the claim that shipping costs for fossil fuels are partly a function of the losses of material in

   Why this is right

   This correctly identifies the role of the claim as the conclusion of the argument and correctly references some of the support for this claim.

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

   76%
2. B

   Not a generalization / illustration5% picked this

   It is a generalization for which the claim that superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with less energy lost in

   This answer is somewhat tempting because it does make our claim sound like a Conclusion (if one claim is illustrated by another, the first claim was supported and thus could be called a conclusion). But is it a generalization to say "superconductor development will probably improve industrial productivity"? Not really. It sounds like a pretty specific prediction. If I say, "the Lakers' first round pick will probably improve their offensive productivity", is that a generalization? No. A generalization is a statement that can apply to many different data points (e.g. "Lawyers are smart" is a statement that can apply to many different specific lawyers). This claim is specifically about superconductor development and it's making one specific prediction about it. Furthermore, the first sentence definitely isn't an illustration of the second claim. The first sentence says "superconductor development will lead to X" and the second claim says "X will probably lead to greater industrial productivity". If the first claim says "A will lead to B" and the second claim says "B will probably lead to C", then we're building a causal chain. We're not offering a general claim and an illustration. The relationship between generalizations and illustrations is broader vs. specific, not that one begins where the last one ended and takes us to some place new. "Tanya is an attorney and she is brilliant" is an illustration of the generalization that "Lawyers are smart". It's basically the same claim twice, once in a broader style, once in a specific style.

   5%
3. C

   Wrong Role16% picked this

   It is an assumption supporting the conclusion that superconductor development will enable energy to be transported farther with

   An assumption is by definition unstated, while this claim is clearly stated in the argument.

   16%
4. D

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   It is a premise offered to support the claim that oil and natural gas have replaced coal as the primary fossil

   This claim is the conclusion of the argument, while this answer suggests that it is a premise.

   2%
5. E

   Wrong Role1% picked this

   It is cited as evidence that shipping costs are a function of the distances fossil fuels are shipped and the

   This claim is the conclusion of the argument, while this answer suggests that it is support for the conclusion.

   1%