Had the party's economic theories

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match Valid Logic7% picked this

   If the people who inhabited the valley for so long had been invaded, or if there had been a dramatic climatic change, there would

   The conditional has an "or" in the trigger, so we could stop reading there. As it turns out, if we bothered to read any more, this is actually a valid argument.

   7%
2. B

   Weaker Match6% picked this

   Many people fear that if the opposition party wins the election and keeps its promise to cut wages dramatically, workers in key industries will

   This one is almost correct, but because it's couched in terms of what people fear / what workers believe, it is a sloppier match than our correct answer. This argument would match if it just said this: Opposition party wins and big wage cut ? strike ~strike. Thus, ~big wage cut But the fact that it's saying many people think "A and B ? C" workers have promised "~C" workers must think "~A" makes it a looser match

   6%
3. C

   Correct73% picked this

   If the company had succeeded in selling its subsidiaries and used the cash to purchase the new patent, its stock price would have doubled

   Why this is right

   We have a conditional premise with an "and" Succeeded sold subsid and bought patent ? stock 2x Then we have a factual premise denying the outcome. ~stock 2x Then we have a conclusion that arbitrarily decides that one of the two trigger ideas didn't happen. ~Succeeded sold subsid This is vulnerable to the same flaw as the original: how do we know the company failed to sell the subsidiaries? Maybe they sold the subsidiaries but didn't use the cash to purchase the new patent.

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

   73%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   City residents were expected to show a great deal of support for the rebels if the battle was won and the jailed rebel leaders

   We do get a conditional premise: Battle won and leaders freed ? residents support But then the factual premise isn't denying the outcome (it should say, "But residents haven't supported the rebels"), it's affirming the outcome: residents have supported the rebels. We can stop reading at that point since the structure can't match. This is doing an illegal reversal, not a botched contrapositive.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match12% picked this

   If the television station's new weather forecasting equipment had been worth the investment, the accuracy of its forecasts would have risen, along with its

   We aren't given a conditional premise with an "and" in the trigger, so we can stop reading at that point. This ends up being almost a valid argument, except it's making a term shift from "new equipment wasn't worth the investment" to "new equipment wasn't an improvement".

   12%