Tamika: Many people have been

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match11% picked this

   showing by analogy that medical professionals should not be susceptible to the fraudulent claims of those who

   The answer is saying "the author shows, by doing X. that Y". The X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author concluding that "medical professionals should not be susceptible to the marketers' fraudulent claims"? No. Our author is concluding "their susceptibility cannot be explained by citing a lack of medical knowledge".

   11%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match12% picked this

   arguing against a hypothesis by showing that the hypothesis cannot account for the

   The answer is saying "the author argues Y, by showing X". The X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion "going against a hypothesis"? Yes. A causal explanation = a hypothesis. The conclusion is saying "You can't use this same explanation/hypothesis to account for the susceptibility among medical professionals." Okay, was the evidence saying, "After all, this explanation can't account for the behavior of everyone"? No, the premise was "After all, these medical professionals have no lack of medical knowledge." It's true that the author believes, "the hypothesis that lack of medical knowledge causes susceptibility to fraud can't account for the behavior of everyone". But according to this interpretation of this answer, we would be accusing the author of rejecting this hypothesis for everyone, not just for medical professionals. Her argument would be saying, "Since the lack of medical knowledge hypothesis can't explain everyone's susceptibility, it doesn't explain anyone's susceptibility". The fixed version of this answer would sound like, "arguing that a hypothesis cannot account for the behavior of everyone by showing that the hypothesis would not apply to one segment of the population".

   12%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   explaining the susceptibility of medical professionals to the fraudulent claims of those marketing certain medical products by casting doubt on

   The answer is saying "the author explains Y, by doing X." The X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion "explaining the susceptibility of medical professionals to the marketers' fraudulent claims"? No. The conclusion is "rejecting one possible explanation for the susceptibility of medical professionals to the marketers' fraudulent claims. We could bail at this point, but the Evidence half of this answer is contradicted, also. The author affirms the expertise of the professionals in her premise (last sentence). She doesn't cast doubt on their expertise.

   3%
4. D

   Correct74% picked this

   arguing that since two groups are disanalogous in important respects, there must be different explanations

   Why this is right

   The answer is saying "the author argues that since X, there must be Y". So the X-part would have to match the evidence and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion saying "there must be different explanations for why group A vs. group B behaves a certain way"? Sure, kind of. The conclusion says "the same explanation cannot be given", which indicates two different explanations are needed. Is the evidence pointing to a way in which two groups are disanalogous (i.e. different) in an important way? Yes. Group A (ordinary people) can have their susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims explained by their lack of medical knowledge necessary to see through the fraudulent claims. Group B (medical professionals) cannot have their susceptibility to fraudulent medical claims explained by a lack of medical knowledge, because people in Group B, unlike those in Group A, have no lack of medical knowledge.

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

   74%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   arguing that an explanation should be accepted in spite of apparent

   The answer is saying "the author argues Y in spite of X". The X-part would have to match some counterpoint, and the Y-part should match the conclusion. Was the author's conclusion " arguing that an explanation should be accepted? No. The conclusion is "rejecting one possible explanation for the susceptibility of medical professionals to the marketers' fraudulent claims."

   1%