In an effort to reduce underage

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   bases a conclusion about the efficacy of a method to reduce underage drinking merely on a normative judgment about

   Since this answer is structured, bases a conclusion about X merely on Y we need to ask ourselves if X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Is the conclusion "about the efficacy of a method to reduce underage drinking"? Sure. The conclusion is saying that the method of "having adolescents say the no-drinking pledge" seems to be effective in having reduced underage drinking. Is the premise "a normative judgment about the morality of underage drinking"? No, it's the results of a survey.

   2%
2. B

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider that an alternative method of reducing underage drinking might

   Since the answer starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is an Objection. Can we object, "Hey, author --- the pledge has not succeeded in reducing underage drinking. After all, other methods can reduce underage drinking by even more?" No. If the pledge made underage drinking go down at all, then the author's conclusion is 100% true. She didn't say this pledge was the best method. She only claimed that it seems to be having some reductive effect.

   1%
3. C

   Correct81% picked this

   infers from an association between pledging not to drink and refraining from drinking that the pledging was the

   Why this is right

   This names the famous Correlation vs. Causation flaw. Since this answer is structured, infers from Y that X we can ask ourselves if X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Is the conclusion saying that "the pledging was the cause of refraining from drinking"? Yes. By saying the campaign has been successful, the author means that it has achieved its goal of reducing underage drinking. How did the campaign attempt to reduce underage drinking? By making teens say the pledge. So saying the campaign was successful is equivalent to saying that "making teens say the pledge led to a reduction in underage drinking". Is the evidence pointing to "an association between pledging not to drink and refraining from drinking"? Yes, the survey results involve "taking the pledge" co-varying with "refraining from drinking".

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

   81%
4. D

   Not Necessary vs. Sufficient7% picked this

   treats a condition that is sufficient to produce an outcome as though it were necessary for

   This answer refers to the #1 famous flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author provides a conditional statement in the evidence, and then uses that conditional statement in an illegal reversed or negated way to arrive at his conclusion. There was only one premise here (the survey results) and it wasn't conditional, so there's no way this could match.

   7%
5. E

   Doesn't Confuse / Equivalent Expressions9% picked this

   confuses the claim that many adolescents who do not drink report having taken the pledge with the claim that many who report having

   The author isn't confusing anything in terms of how he thinks about the two different groups of 17 year olds in the survey results. Moreover, the claim "many X's are Y" is equivalent to "many Y's are X". They both mean, "There's at least a handful of things that are both X and Y".

   9%