If the prosecutor wanted

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match12% picked this

   If Rosita knew that her 9:00 appointment would cancel, she would not come in to work until 10:00. She did not come in until

   The second premise matches the outcome of the conditional, and then infers the trigger of the conditional (i.e. an illegal Reversal). If Rosita knew, she would wait til 10. She waited til 10. So Rosita must have known. We wanted an argument where the second premise contradicts the outcome of the conditional.

   12%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match8% picked this

   If Barry had won the lottery, he would stay home to celebrate. But Barry did not win the lottery, so he will

   The second premise asserts that the trigger idea did not happen, and then infers that the outcome idea will not happen (i.e. an illegal negation). If Barry wins, he'll stay home. Barry did not win. So, Barry will not stay home. We wanted an argument where the second premise asserts that the outcome did not happen.

   8%
3. C

   Correct65% picked this

   If Makoto believed that he left the oven on, he would rush home. But Makoto is still at work. So obviously he

   Why this is right

   We get our conditional: If Makoto believed oven on, rush home. We get our fact triggering the contrapositive: Makoto not rush home (still at work) And then the conclusion goes beyond the subjective, correct inference (Makoto doesn't believe oven on) to a speculative takeaway: Thus the oven isn't on.

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

   65%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match10% picked this

   If Tamara believed she was getting a promotion, she would come in to work early. She did come in early. So apparently

   The second premise matches the outcome of the conditional, and then infers a speculative version of the trigger of the conditional. So while this one does do the speculative leap conclusion, from Tamara's belief to an actual fact, but it doesn't reason through a contrapositive fact. It tries to reason through an illegal Reversal. If Tamara believed promotion, come early. Tamara came early. So Tamara is getting promoted. A matching argument would have looked like, If Tamara believed promotion, Tamara come early. Tamara didn't come early. So Tamara isn't getting promotion.

   10%
5. E

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match5% picked this

   If Lucy believed she was going to be fired, she would not come in to work today. She is going to be fired, so

   This gives us a conditional: If Lucy believed fired, Lucy not come in. The next ingredient is supposed to be a fact triggering the contrapositive (Lucy did come in). Instead, it's definitive information relating to the left side of the conditional: Lucy is definitely getting fired At this point, there's no way it can match, so we'd give up on it. Tamara came early. So Tamara is getting promoted. A matching argument would have looked like, If Tamara believed promotion, Tamara come early. Tamara didn't come early. So Tamara isn't getting promotion.

   5%