Principle: It is healthy for children

Answer choices

1. A

   Not a Misinterpretation5% picked this

   It misinterprets the principle as a universal claim intended to hold in all cases without exception, rather than

   Principles, if they're worded conditionally like this one, are universal claims intended to hold in all cases without exception. A generalization would be something like, "Activities that detract from your social development tend to be unhealthy". That sort of principle isn't intended to hold in all cases. But a claim structured with only if does not tolerate exceptions.

   5%
2. B

   Unrelated to Goal4% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that the benefits of a given activity may sometimes be important enough to outweigh

   We're supposed to be commenting on how the Application failed to trigger the Principle (because there's a difference between "less time spent interacting with people" and "detracting from social development"). This answer feels like an objection to the conclusion. "Hey, what do you mean it's not healthy! Just because it detracts from her social development, it still has enough blessings that it's worth it!" This would be a critique of the conclusion, or a critique of the principle itself, but we're supposed to be critiquing the application, i.e. how the evidence failed to trigger the principle.

   4%
3. C

   Not a Misinterpretation11% picked this

   It misinterprets the principle to be, at least in part, a claim about what is unhealthy, rather than solely a

   This principle is absolutely about what is unhealthy. It says: "if an activity detracts from social development, then it is unhealthy for children to engage in it"

   11%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   It takes for granted that any decrease in the amount of time a child spends interacting with others detracts

   Why this is right

   This calls out the missing link between the left side (trigger) of the Principle and the evidence of the Application. evidence reading so much reduces time spent interacting with others trigger the activity detracts from the child's social development As this answer says, the author is assuming that "if it reduces time spent interacting with others, then it detracts from social development".

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

   72%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient8% picked this

   It takes a necessary condition for an activity's being healthy as a sufficient condition for

   This is describing the famous flaw in which an author provides a conditional statement in the premise and then applies it illegally in a backwards or opposite fashion to get to her conclusion. This author didn't try to go backwards or inverted with a conditional statement. She's using it in its proper order. She just hasn't established the trigger of "detracting from social development".

   8%