Amoebas, like human beings

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct67% picked this

   Poets, like people under hypnosis, frequently use language in odd, incomprehensible ways. People under hypnosis do this because their inhibitions are lower than those

   Why this is right

   The conclusion is about all artists and we have a premise about a type of artist, "poets". Is the evidence going off a comparison between poets and something else? Yes. It's saying, "Poets and hypnotized people are both X -- they both use language in weird ways". (just like "amoebas and humans both withdraw from damaging stimuli"). Does the rest of the argument say, "since hypnotized people are Y, then all artists are Y"? Yes, it says "Hypnotized people do it because of lowered inhibitions, therefore all artists do it because of lowered inhibitions." This matches up with "humans do it because of pain, therefore all microscopic organisms are doing it because of pain." This replicates both flaws of the original argument: 1. the author is assuming that because poets/hypnotized people are alike in one regard, they'll be alike in another. 2. the conclusion generalizes from 'poets' to a broader category that includes 'poets' (all artists).

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

   67%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match13% picked this

   Like nonprofit organizations, corporations usually provide some free public services. Nonprofit organizations do this solely because of their members' desire to make the world

   This conclusion is not an "all" claim that's sure of itself, like the conclusion of the original argument. It's a "most" claim that's probably true. That's enough to ditch this answer on a first pass. The conclusion is about "most corporations", but there isn't a premise that's about one specific type of corporation.

   13%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match5% picked this

   Most professional athletes practice regularly for the same reason. Professional boxers spend several hours a day practicing in order to excel in competition. Thus

   This conclusion is not a claim that's sure of itself, like the conclusion of the original argument. It's a probably claim. That's enough to discount this answer on a first pass. The conclusion is about "professional skaters", but there isn't a premise that's about one specific type of professional skater. In the original argument the premise (amoebas) was more specific than the conclusion (all microscopic organisms). In this argument the premise (pro athletes) is more general than the conclusion (pro skaters).

   5%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match5% picked this

   Predatory birds, like many predatory animals, are generally solitary hunters. Some predatory mammals hunt alone because there is not enough food to support a

   This has identical problems to (C). The conclusion is not a claim that's sure of itself; it's a probably claim. In the original argument the premise (amoebas) was more specific than the conclusion (all microscopic organisms). In this argument the premise (predatory birds) is more general than the conclusion (hawks).

   5%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match10% picked this

   Hiking trails in British Columbia, like those in New Mexico, are concentrated in mountainous regions. In New Mexico this is partly because low-lying areas

   This conclusion looks promising, because it's an all claim that's sure of itself. But we don't have the Category vs. Category Member relationship between Conclusion and Premise that we had in the original argument. In the original argument the conclusion was a broad category (all microscopic organisms) and the premise was one member of that category (amoebas). In this argument the conclusion is a broad category (hikers), but there's a premise that's a specific type of hiker.

   10%