Justine: Pellman, Inc. settled the lawsuit

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported Both People12% picked this

   If the lawsuit against Pellman had gone to trial, it is likely that Pellman would

   Neither person is ever talking about whether they think Pellman was likely / unlikely to have lost. They're only discussing whether Pellman expected to lose or not.

   12%
2. B

   Unsupported Both People13% picked this

   Pellman's corporate leaders were able to accurately estimate their chances of

   Neither person is talking about whether Pellman was accurate / inaccurate in terms of estimating their chances of winning. Whether Pellman was accurately estimating their chances of winning or inaccurately estimating their chances of winning, it wouldn't affect either person's statements in any way. Their statements are only speculating what motivated Pellman to settle. They aren't weighing in at all on whether it was factually wise to settle. For example, Justine thinks an expectation of losing is what motivated Pellman to settle. She is assuming, then, that Pellman did estimate their chances of winning, but she isn't assuming that Pellman was able to accurately estimate their odds of losing.

   13%
3. C

   Unsupported Person 14% picked this

   If Pellman's legal fees for going to trial would have been more costly than the settlement, then settling the lawsuit was the

   Justine never talks about legal fees or cost-effective solution, so we definitely can't infer her position on this claim. We can almost infer that Simon would agree with this, although technically he was only saying that Pellman believed that settling was the most cost-effective solution (settling the lawsuit seemed the most cost-effective solution). That doesn't mean that he, Simon, also shares that view.

   4%
4. D

   Nobody Agrees12% picked this

   If Pellman's corporate leaders had expected that the legal fees for going to trial would have been less costly than the settlement, they would

   Justine believes this connection to be true: if you settle out of court, the corporate leaders expected to lose This answer, by contrapositive, says if you settle out of court, then you thought that the legal fees would be at least as costly as the settlement. We can't say she agrees with the answer, because obviously those two outcomes are saying completely different things. The triggers match, but the outcomes are far from synonyms. To disagree with the answer is to say, "Sometimes people settle out of court, but they think the legal fees will be less costly than the settlement." Can we support that Justine believes this Disagree Position? No, because she never even commented on people's perceptions of legal feels in relation to settlement size. We also don't really know Simon's position, although he seems close to agreeing with this. The problem is that Simon wouldn't be certain that Pellman would take a suit to trial, because he isn't sure whether they did or didn't expect to lose.

   12%
5. E

   Correct59% picked this

   If Pellman's corporate leaders had expected to win in court, then they would not have settled the lawsuit out

   Why this is right

   What we know of Justine is that she believes this connection to be true: if you settle out of court, the corporate leaders expected to lose Corporate leaders didn't ? wouldn't have settled expect to lose out of court So we know Justine would agree with this answer choice. Would Simon disagree? Disagreeing with a conditional means that you're saying "it's possible the left side is true but the right side isn't". Was Simon saying that, "It's possible that the corporate leaders did expect to win, but still would have chosen to settle"? Yes! He's saying there are circumstances where even if you expect to win, you see that you'll be paying more in legal fees than you'd get out of the settlement, so you settle just to because it's a financially preferable outcome.

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

   59%