The only songs Amanda has ever

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

   The only pets the Gupta family has ever owned are fish and parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So if the next pet the

   This one is pretty close. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. The only Gupta pets in the past have been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If the next Gupta pet is a parrot, it will probably be very noisy. This would have worked if only the conclusion had said, "If the next pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy".

   7%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   Most parrots are very noisy. The Gupta family has never owned any pets other than fish and parrots. So if the Gupta family has

   This conclusion is past-looking. Thus, it won't be able to replicate that "Past = Present/Future" aspect of the original argument. This argument also has a flaw in that it's possible that most fish are also very noisy. Unless the argument rules out that possibility, we can't conclude that any past noisy pet was probably a parrot.

   3%
3. C

   Weak Conclusion Match28% picked this

   All the pets the Gupta family has ever owned have been fish and parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So any pet the Gupta

   This one is also very close. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. All the Gupta pets in the past have been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If any future Gupta pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy. The only difference here is that the conclusion isn't about "the next pet", it's about all future pets. This answer would work if the original argument had concluded, "So any future songs Amanda writes that aren't blues will probably not involve more than three chords."

   28%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match27% picked this

   Every pet the Gupta family has ever owned has been a fish or a parrot. Most parrots are very noisy. So if the next

   This one works until the conclusion. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. Every Gupta pet in the past has been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If the next Gupta pet is not a parrot, it will probably not be very noisy. This conclusion, symbolically, is saying, Conclusion: If the next X is not B, it will probably not have trait Z.

   27%
5. E

   Correct35% picked this

   The Gupta family has never owned any pets other than fish and parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So the next pet the Gupta

   Why this is right

   This one works top to bottom. Premise 1: The only X's in the past have been A or B. The only Gupta pets in the past has been fish or parrots. Premise 2: Most B's have trait Z. Most parrots have trait "very noisy". Conclusion: If the next X is not A, it will probably have trait Z. If the next Gupta pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy. LSAC tried to fool us by burying the "if" trigger in the conclusion later in the sentence, and by forcing us to rephrase the first sentence into "the only X's have been A or B" form.

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

   35%