Advertisement: GreenBank gives all

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   bases a recommendation solely on economic factors without considering whether other factors

   The conclusion of an argument is based on the evidence, so when we read "bases X solely on Y", the X should match the conclusion and the Y should match the evidence. Was the conclusion a recommendation? No, it wasn't. The conclusion is just a descriptive, quantitative idea. I can say "it costs more to buy a Tesla than it does to buy a Prius", but that doesn't mean I'm recommending that someone buy a Prius.

   2%
2. B

   Not Irrelevant0% picked this

   presents claims that are irrelevant to the issue under discussion in order to divert attention

   The conclusion is about which bank is more costly to bank at. The evidence is about one of the costs involved in banking at each bank. So the evidence is definitely relevant to the issue under discussion.

   0%
3. C

   Correct96% picked this

   draws a conclusion about the overall cost of a service solely on the basis of a claim about the cost of

   Why this is right

   Since this answer says, "draws a conclusion about X solely on the basis of Y", we'd expect X to match the conclusion and Y to match the evidence. Was the conclusion about the overall cost of a service? Sure it's saying that "overall, it costs more to bank at TekBank than at GreenBank". Was the evidence only talking about the cost of one component of that service? Yes, the evidence only told us which bank was cheaper to bank at, when it comes to ATM fees. This matches the argument and reflects a complain we have with the logic: there's no way to judge whether one service is more expensive than another overall by simply comparing one line item of cost involved.

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

   96%
4. D

   Reversed Parts2% picked this

   concludes that a component of a service must have a property that the service as

   Since this answer says, "concludes that a component must have a property that the whole possesses", we'd be matching it with an argument that went from Whole to Part: the evidence would establish a property that a service as a whole possesses, and then the conclusion would say that a component also has that certain property. Our argument went from Part to Whole. ATM fees (one part of banking at each bank) are more costly at T-bank than at G-bank. Thus, banking (overall) is more costly at T-bank than at G-bank. Our argument "concludes that a whole service must have a property that one component of the service has". One component of TekBank's banking service has the property of "being more costly than GreenBank", and the author concludes that the service as a whole at TekBank must have the property of "being more costly than GreenBank". This answer would match an argument that said, "It is more costly overall to bank at TekBank than at GreenBank. Thus, the ATM fees must be more costly overall at TekBank than at GreenBank."

   2%
5. E

   Trap0% picked this

   concludes that a claim must be false because of the mere absence of evidence

   Bad Conclusion Match Not Unproven vs. Proven False Was the conclusion saying that a claim must be false? Nope. It just says, "overall, it costs more to bank at TekBank than at GreenBank".. This answer describes one of the 10 famous flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False, in which an author thinks that since no one has proven X (or because someone has made a bad argument in favor of X), that X must therefore be false.

   0%