Paleomycologists, scientists who study

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct68% picked this

   When a flight on Global Airlines is delayed, all connecting Global Airlines flights are also delayed so that the passengers can make their connections.

   Why this is right

   This also commits a backwards logic flaw. We know that "If a GA flight is delayed, then connecting GA flights will be delayed". The argument then reasons right to left by saying, "Since F's connecting GA flight was delayed, we know that her first flight was a delayed GA flight."

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

   68%
2. B

   Trap3% picked this

   Any time that one of Global Airlines' local ticket agents misses a shift, the other agents on that shift need to work harder than

   Weaker Premise / Conclusion Match Illegal Negation vs. Reversal Confusingly, this is also committing a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. However, this one looks less similar to the original, because this one performs a negation, rather than a reversal. Logically, the flaw in this argument is pretty equivalent to the flaw in (A). But as a "pattern", a reversal feels different from a negation. Original: paleo → acquainted with X. Joe is acquainted with X. Thus, Joe is a paleo. choice (B) someone misses → work harder Last week no one missed. Thus, last week not work harder.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   Any time the price of fuel decreases, Global Airlines' expenses decrease and its income is unaffected. The price of fuel decreased several times last

   The premise actually triggers the left side of the conditional. Since fuel has decreased several times, several times GA's expenses have gone down while revenue has been unaffected. The effect of each of those decreases was to increase GA's profitability. We still wouldn't be able to prove they made a profit, but it's not like the original flaw. In the original, the premise established the right side of the conditional.

   3%
4. D

   Different Flaw (Possible vs. Certain)20% picked this

   All employees of Global Airlines can participate in its retirement plan after they have been with the company a year or more. Gavin has

   Here the conditional is been with company 1+ yrs → can be in retire plan As soon as we see the Premise is validly triggering the left side of the conditional (Gavin has been with company for 1+ yrs), we know this doesn't match the original. The flaw with this conclusion, for what it's worth, is that we only know by triggering that conditional that Gavin can be in the retirement plan. We don't know for sure he is.

   20%
5. E

   Bad Contrapositive vs. Reversal6% picked this

   Whenever a competitor of Global Airlines reduces its fares, Global must follow suit or lose passengers. Global carried more passengers last year than it

   As soon as we see the factual premise is saying something that goes against the right side of the conditional, we know this doesn't match the original argument (whose factual premise matched the right side of conditional). This attempts to argue (validly) by contrapositive, but it messes up the fact that the trigger of the contrapositive has two conditions that must be obtained. This answer argues, since "X --> Y or Z" and "~Z", then "~X". But ~Z is not enough on its own to prove ~X; you also need to know ~Y. The conditional says, competitor GA also GA loses reduces → reduces or passengers fairs fairs By contrapositive, ~Lose ~Reduce Competitors Passengers and fares → ~reduce fares

   6%