If squirrels eat from a bird feeder

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   If a tire's pressure is too low, the tire will wear out prematurely, and if a tire wears out prematurely, a likely cause is

   It looks like all three claims are conditionals, but the two premises don't have the same trigger, so we know it's wrong. These are the two premise triggers: Pressure too low → Tire wears out prematurely →

   4%
2. B

   Correct77% picked this

   If a tire's pressure is too low, the tire will wear out prematurely. But tire pressure will become too low only if the car

   Why this is right

   The two premises start with the same trigger: Pressure too low → wear out prematurely Pressure too low → neglects check And if we were to reverse that second premise, then we could derive the connection the author does in the conclusion: neglects → pressure → wear out check too low prematurely P1: B → A pressure too low → neglects check P2: B → C pressure too low → wear out prematurely C: A→ C neglects check → wear out prematurely

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

   77%
3. C

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Tires wear out prematurely if car owners neglect to check the tire pressure regularly. Unless car owners are unaware of this fact, they check

   The conclusion is not really presenting as a conditional. It's a prescriptive / normative idea. "We should make car owners aware of consequences". Yes, we could turn that into a conditional, like, "If car owner, then should be made aware", but we shouldn't have to contort the correct answer that much. If we didn't bail based on that, we would potentially be enticed by the fact that the two premise conditionals do have similar triggers. neglect check regularly → wear our prematurely neglect check regularly → unaware of fact We would now want a conclusion that tries to make a conditional relationship between those outcomes, something like this: "If tires wear out prematurely, then the car owner was unaware" or "If car own is unaware, then tires will wear out prematurely" The conclusion doesn't resemble either of those. The fact that it doesn't mention "wear out prematurely" tells us it can't be a match.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match Valid Logic12% picked this

   If a tire's pressure is too low, the tire will wear out prematurely. But tire pressure will become too low if the car owner

   It looks like all three claims are conditionals, but the two premises don't have the same trigger, so we know it's wrong. These are the two premise triggers: Pressure too low → Neglects to check → If we got sucked into thinking harder about this answer, we would discover that it's also valid logic.

   12%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   If a tire's pressure is too low, the tire will wear out prematurely. But it will also wear out prematurely if it is often

   It looks like all three claims are conditionals, but the two premises don't have the same trigger, so we know it's wrong. These are the two premise triggers: Pressure too low → Driven on gravel roads →

   3%