Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: self-contradiction7% picked this

   appealing to evidence that tends to undermine rather than support the

   This wasn't an example of the famous Internal Contradiction flaw. The author's evidence can be interpreted more than one way, but it doesn't undermine her conclusion.

   7%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw: circular6% picked this

   appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the

   This was not a circular argument, in which the evidence is basically a restatement of the conclusion. The evidence (the sentinel's bark warns the others of danger) is not a restatement of the conclusion (the sentinel's bark is partially altruistic).

   6%
3. C

   Correct79% picked this

   inferring solely from an effect produced by an action that a purpose of the action is

   Why this is right

   This gets at the Result vs. Intent distinction. The action of the sentinel's bark produces the effect of the foragers being warned of danger. Our author infers / assumes that the sentinel's purpose in barking was to warn the foragers of danger, and hence that their action was somewhat altruistic.

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

   79%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   inferring solely from the claim that the behavior of a meerkat sentinel is not entirely selfish that this

   When someone says "the gas tank is at least partially full", they aren't claiming that "the gas tank is entirely full". They're allowing for the possibility that it's totally full. This author concluded that the sentinel's behavior is at least partially altruistic, but we can't say that our author ever inferred that the sentinel's behavior is entirely altruistic.

   8%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw1% picked this

   concluding that a claim is false on the grounds that insufficient evidence has been offered

   Wrong Flaw: unproven vs. proven false Bad Evidence Match Did the author conclude a claim is false? I guess we could say that she concluded the claim that "the sentinel's behavior is entirely self-interested" is false. Did her evidence pick apart someone else's argument? No. That's what this answer is describing. Her evidence was just telling us that the sentinel's bark warns others of danger.

   1%