Clark: Our local community theater

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient10% picked this

   takes a condition necessary for a playwright's being critically acclaimed to be a condition sufficient for a

   This describes the most frequent of the famous flaws, Necessary vs. Sufficient, which means that the author presented a conditional logic rule in the premise and then applied it in a backwards or opposite way to reach her conclusion. Was there conditional logic in this argument? No. When we read "takes X for Y", we can ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. In the evidence, did they present "a condition necessary for a playwright to be critically acclaimed"? Nope. They never said something was required in order to be considered a critically acclaimed playwright.

   10%
2. B

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider that several different effects may be produced by

   When we see fails to consider X, we can ask ourselves, "If X were true, would it be an objection to this argument?" Can we say to the author, "Hey, author, Michaela isn't necessarily a critically acclaimed playwright, because several different effects may be produced by a single cause"? No, nothing in this argument was causal, other than the director saying "whether or not a play is critically acclaimed is a main factor in their decision making process." If anything, this argument "fails to consider that a single effect (getting produced by this local theater) may be produced by several different causes". This would feel kind of like saying, "Author, even though being critically acclaimed is one cause for why this theater might put a play on, there might be other causes that would also lead to that same effect".

   1%
3. C

   Correct88% picked this

   treats one main factor considered in the selection of plays to perform as though it were a condition that must be met in order

   Why this is right

   If we see an answer structured like treats X as though it were Y we can ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and whether Y matches the conclusion or an assumption the author makes to reach the conclusion. Does the evidence discuss "one main factor considered in the selection of plays"? Yes, it says that critical acclaim "is one of the main factors considered". Does the author then go on to act like critical acclaim is a "condition that must be met in order for a play to be selected"? Yes, because the author's final move from premise to conclusion looks like this: M's new play was ? M is critically selected to be performed acclaimed The author thinks, "If your play is being performed, then you must be critically acclaimed", which is synonymous with thinking "being critically acclaimed is a condition that must be met in order for your play to be selected". This answer matches. Does it speak to a logic problem? Sure! It's bad logic to think that just because a 170+ LSAT score is a main factor considered by Harvard Law's application board that "a 170+ is a condition that must be met in order to be accepted".

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

   88%
4. D

   Reliable Source0% picked this

   uses as evidence a source that there is reason to believe

   The only source cited was the production director. We're given no reason to think that she's unreliable, and she's certainly holding a position that would plausibly have good knowledge of the inner workings of how the local theater selects its plays.

   0%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   provides no evidence that a playwright's being critically acclaimed is the result rather than the cause of his or her

   Wrong Flaw: not Causal Assumes the Opposite This answer is citing the famous objection to a Causal argument, "What if you've confused cause and effect?" (reverse causality) When we see answer choices like this, provides no evidence that X fails to establish that X we can ask ourselves, "Was the author assuming X? Does it need to be true for her argument to work?" Was this author assuming that Michaela's critical acclaim was the result of being selected for production by this theater? No, not al all. In fact the author was thinking more like M's critical acclaim already existed and that's what allowed her play to be selected by this local theater.

   2%