Peter: Recent evidence suggests

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: because they believe2% picked this

   It takes for granted that people choose to consume alcohol because they believe it is

   The author hasn't mentioned anything about what people do / don't believe about alcohol or speculated in any way about why people drink, so the author hasn't committed to any assumptions about why people choose to drink alcohol. If you negated this idea and said "people don't drink because they believe alcohol is beneficial", the author's argument wouldn't be weakened. She'd just say, "Cool, I never said that's WHY they drink; it just so happens to be an effect of them drinking."

   2%
2. B

   Out of Scope: popular belief1% picked this

   It draws a comparison based on popular belief rather than on

   Does the author draw a comparison? Nope. Is there reference to a popular belief? Nope. Is there a scientific opinion? Yeah, we could probably consider "recent evidence suggests" a scientific opinion. So all three parts of this answer don't match. Appealing to people's belief rather than actual scientific data is a famous flaw known as Inappropriate Appeal (to Opinion).

   1%
3. C

   Not an Objection13% picked this

   It fails to consider methods of achieving the same beneficial effects that do

   Does it hurt the author's argument if we say, "Yo, my dude -- there are other ways to make your body an inhospitable environment than consuming alcohol", the author would just say "Sure, I know. I never said alcohol was the only substance that had these beneficial effects, just that it is a substance with these beneficial effects."

   13%
4. D

   Correct75% picked this

   It draws a conclusion about alcohol consumption in general from a premise about

   Why this is right

   Does the author draw a conclusion about alcohol consumption in general? Sure, the conclusion just says "alcohol consumption is beneficial". Is the author's premise about moderate alcohol consumption? Yes -- she says that moderate alcohol consumption has certain beneficial effects on health. But maybe light alcohol consumption or heavy alcohol consumption doesn't have those benefits. (perhaps light alcohol consumption is not enough to render your insides inhospitable to bacteria, whereas heavy alcohol consumption starts to be very damaging to your heart/liver) By shifting from evidence about a subtype of alcohol consumption to a conclusion about all types of alcohol consumption, the author is making a Sampling assumption that what is true of moderate consumption is also true of light / heavy consumption. We could object to the author by saying, "Even though moderate alcohol consumption can have beneficial effects, light alcohol consumption is totally neutral and heavy alcohol consumption is very damaging. Thus, we can't really just generalize that alcohol consumption is, on balance, beneficial."

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

   75%
5. E

   Not an Objection10% picked this

   It fails to consider that alcohol may have no effect on many bacteria that cause

   The author didn't promise that alcohol killed 100% of bacteria, so pointing out that it has no effect on many bacteria isn't an objection. It might even be that alcohol doesn't kill off the good bacteria that's part of a healthy gut. That would actually help the author's case. Something doesn't need to be a perfect/total solution to be a beneficial action.

   10%