Recently, a report commissioned

Answer choices

1. A

   Doesn't Rely on Truth3% picked this

   relies on the truth of a claim by a source that is likely

   This answer is very tempting, because the confectioners trade association seems like a group that is likely to be biased when it comes to putting out pro-chocolate propagana. We might think to ourselves, though, "The 2nd example about oils doesn't have any sketchy source, so it's not like the author is entirely dependent on a claim from a sketchy source." Furthermore, it's called Ad Hominem when we dismiss the validity of a view just because the source might have a biased interest. So if we were discounting the truth of the reports about chocolate's antioxidant properties because the source was biased, then we would be committing an Ad Hominem flaw. But perhaps the easiest way to tell yourself this answer doesn't work is that the author doesn't actually care whether the confectioners trade association's report is true. The conclusion isn't saying that "if we wait long enough, we'll find out that almost every food is healthful". It's only saying that almost every food "will be reported to be healthful". So even if the association's claim is biased and false, it would still accord with the author's conclusion: they did report that it's healthful, so it still counts as an example of what the conclusion is talking about.

   3%
2. B

   Out of Scope: general rule3% picked this

   applies a general rule to specific cases to which it does

   An author can apply a rule to a specific case to then derive a judgment (i.e. conclusion) about that case. The only thing in this paragraph that sounds like a general rule would be the generalization in the conclusion. But the author isn't applying that rule to any specific cases. She's deriving a general rules from a couple specific cases. And those cases clearly do pertain to the rule, since they involve foods that after some period of time were finally reported to be healthful.

   3%
3. C

   Correct92% picked this

   bases an overly broad generalization on just a

   Why this is right

   This is just measuring our ability to react to the extremely hyperbolic conclusion. "Because these two foods eventually got reported as healthful, we're supposed to believe that almost any food will have the same fate?" How come? Why should we believe that these two examples are indicative of an almost-universal trend? Couldn't these be atypical examples? This answer is one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Sampling, in which the conclusion generalizes from a sample that could be too small, unrepresentative, self-selecting, or biased in some way.

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

   92%
4. D

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: all1% picked this

   takes for granted that all results of nutritional research are

   Is this author assuming that 100% of nutritional research results eventually get reported? Of course not. Would the argument be any different if only 99% of nutritional research results eventually get reported? Nope. So there's no reason the author needs to assume "all".

   1%
5. E

   Doesn't Fail to Consider2% picked this

   fails to consider that there are many foods that are reported

   The author seems to be directly acknowledging that foods are often reported to be unhealthful (after all, both chocolate and oily foods were reported as such). And the foods that are still currently reported to be unhealthful are almost-all in the list of foods she thinks will eventually be reported to be healthful, if we wait long enough.

   2%