The photographs that the store

Answer choices

1. A

   Reversed Logic4% picked this

   If the store owes the customer a refund, then neither the camera nor the

   This conditional looks like store owes refund ? ~defective cam & ~defective film Does that reflect the author's move from Premise to Conclusion? No. The stuff on the left is the Conclusion. The stuff on the right is from the Evidence.

   4%
2. B

   Correct86% picked this

   If neither the film nor the camera was defective, and the customer handled the film correctly, then the

   Why this is right

   This expresses the idea that the author assumes that these four things are an exhaustive list of possible causes for unsatisfactory photos: bad film, bad camera, mishandled film, improperly processed photos. Does the author's argument match this flow? ~defective camera + ~defective film ? processed improperly + handled film properly Yes. The author introduced a rule that triggers "store owes refund", and the author concluded that "store owes refund", so the author is definitely assuming the rule got triggered: that the store didn't process the pics properly. The author gets there by ruling out two things and then conditionally stipulating that if a third thing is true, then a refund is owed.

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

   86%
3. C

   Opposite Logic1% picked this

   If pictures are taken with a defective camera, then it is not possible for the store to

   The author is thinking if it wasn't a defective must be that the camera (and a couple ? store processed the other things) pics improperly This answer is doing the classic Fake Opposite, where they just flip both ideas: if it WAS defective ? WASN'T processed improperly

   1%
4. D

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match Opposite3% picked this

   If the customer handled the film incorrectly, that is what caused the photographs that the store

   This takes ideas the author is presenting or implicitly assuming them and flips them. The easiest way to think about why this answer is wrong is that the author only talked about what would be true "if the customer handled the film correctly". The author doesn't say anything about what would be true if the customer didn't handle the film correctly. Seeing this answer flip the positive/negative status of that "if" should be enough to get rid of it. The author doesn't have to assume that if the film was handled incorrectly that this definitely caused the bad pics. It's possible that the film was handled incorrectly and it was also processed improperly, and that the latter caused the pics to come out bad.

   3%
5. E

   Opposite Logic5% picked this

   If the customer's claim was not correct, then the store does not owe

   This literally takes the conclusion and performs an illegal negation, just flipping the values of each idea. If I conclude, "if we get pizza, the kids will be happy" I'm not assuming "if we don't get pizza, the kids will be unhappy" It's very possible that more than one thing will make them happy.

   5%