Investigators have not proved

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct86% picked this

   Kim has no reason to believe that Sada will win the election. Kim also has no reason to believe that Brown will win the

   Why this is right

   This seems somewhat similar to the original argument. It's possible that Kim and Sada are tied in the polls (they're each getting 40% of the vote) and then no other candidate has as much as 10% of the vote. Since they're tied in the polls, we have no reason to prefer one over the other. But since they are the two front-runners, we still have some reason to believe the winner will be one or the other of them. This answer doesn't seem perfect: this evidence is about having no reason at all to believe X, whereas the original argument is about not being able to prove X. Those are different. So we would bail from this if we were offered a tighter match, but we aren't.

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

   86%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   We have no proof either for the theory that the thief escaped through the vent in the ceiling or for the theory that the

   This has the right setup ingredients, but the conclusion should be saying, "Therefore, we have no proof that the thief escaped through the vent or the through the window".

   5%
3. C

   Different Flaw2% picked this

   Most of the students in my dormitory are engineering majors, and most of the students in my dormitory are from out of town. So

   This is a flaw relating to combining two Most statements. These two premises would allow us to say that, "some engineering majors are from out of town", but they don't allow us to get so precise as to say "most engineering majors in my dorm are from out of town". But the original argument has nothing to do with combining Most claims in an overly ambitious way.

   2%
4. D

   Different Flaw3% picked this

   In some parts of the forest camping is permitted. Also, hunting is permitted in some parts of the forest. So there are some parts

   Like (C), this flaw relates to trying to conclude some Venn Diagram overlap that is stronger than anything we can prove. Since each premise here just talked about Some parts of the forest, we have no reason to think that the camping parts have to overlap with the hunting parts. But the original argument had nothing to do with assuming there was an overlap between two Some statements.

   3%
5. E

   Different Flaw5% picked this

   The evidence shows that the car could have been driven by Jones at the time of the accident; however, it also shows that it

   The original argument was P1: Haven't proven X. P2: Haven't proven Y. C: Thus, haven't proven X or Y This answer's argument looks like this P1: Could have been X. P2: Could have been Y. C: Thus, could have been X and Y For the original, we were saying, "even though you can't prove it separately, maybe you can prove it together". For this, we're saying, "even though it could have happened separately, maybe it couldn't have happened together."

   5%