We can be sure

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Conclusion Match9% picked this

   We can be confident that the temperature will drop abruptly on at least one day this week, for there is a chance of storms

   The Premise indicator "for" tells us that the first claim was the conclusion. The strength of the original conclusion is "we can be sure that", whereas this conclusion is "we can be confident". That's enough of a mismatch that I would start looking elsewhere. The rest of this argument is reasonable, but it's a probabilistic argument. We are given a conditional. There's a good chance the trigger will be fired, so they conclude there's a good chance the outcome will happen.

   9%
2. B

   Correct48% picked this

   We can be positive that there are at least a few disturbing sonnets, given that Melinda has written several different kinds of

   Why this is right

   We have a conditional premise: Melinda writes ? disturbing We have a premise that tells us that 'something' establishes the trigger: Several difference sonnets were written by Melinda And we have a conclusion attaching the outcome of that conditional to the 'something': Several difference sonnets are disturbing

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

   48%
3. C

   Weak Premise Match Flawed Logic9% picked this

   We can be sure that Gianna will get at least some good mechanical work done to her car, because she can have her car

   We have a conditional premise: shop in town ? capable of good mech work We don't have a premise clearly telling us that 'something' establishes the trigger, though. Gianna could take her car to a shop in town. A correct conclusion would only be able to say "Gianna could get some good mech work done to her car".

   9%
4. D

   Weak Premise Match21% picked this

   We can be positive that at least some minnows are healthy, because many different species of minnow can be found in lakes nearby, and

   We have a conditional premise: Nearby lake ? teeming with healthy fish But we don't quite have a premise that tells us that 'something' establishes the trigger. We're told that there are minnows in nearby lakes, but the trigger for the conditional is just "If it's a nearby lake", not "if it's in a nearby lake". This trap answer ultimately comes down to the definition of 'teeming'. Saying that "Congress is teeming with corruption" does not mean that 100% of the members of Congress are corrupt. It just means, "There's lots of corruption there". Similarly, every lake is teeming with healthy fish just means there are lots of healthy fish in every nearby lake, not that 100% of fish in every nearby lake are healthy. Since this conditional rule doesn't guarantee that every fish in each nearby lake is healthy, there's no way to be sure that any of the minnows are healthy. Super mean way to make an answer wrong.

   21%
5. E

   Weak Conclusion Match13% picked this

   We can be confident that the cornmeal used at Matteo's Trattoria is healthful and organic, since cornmeal is among the ingredients used in preparing

   This is a valid argument. There's a conditional that gets triggered by cornmeal. The conclusion then tries to conclude the outcome of the conditional, in relation to cornmeal. The only mismatch is the strength of language in the conclusion: we can be confident (E) vs. we can be sure (original)

   13%