Letter to the editor: When your

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct53% picked this

   If a claim is extraordinary, it should not be presented uncritically unless it is backed by evidence of

   Why this is right

   We want a principle where the left-side seems to match the argument we read, but the right side does not match the author's conclusion. Extraordinary claim it should not and ? be presented uncritically Not backed up by (i.e. it should be extremely good presented skeptically) evidence Mr. H did make an extraordinary claim, and, even though he's a trusted member of the community, his eyewitness testimony is not "evidence of an extraordinarily high standard". According to this principle, the newspaper should present this story with a critical / skeptical tone. According to the author, doing so was wrong and indicative of an unjustified bias. So the argument conflicts with the principle.

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

   53%
2. B

   Partial Premise Mismatch16% picked this

   One should be skeptical of claims that are based upon testimonial evidence that is acquired only

   This has the right kind of conclusion (i.e. it sounds like the opposite of our author's conclusion), but we can't match up everything in the trigger. Claim based upon testimonial evidence should be and ? skeptical of Evidence acquired that claim only through an intermediary source As far as we know, the newspaper got the eyewitness testimony directly from Mr. Hanlon. We have no way to say that the newspaper only acquired Mr. H's testimony through some intermediary source.

   16%
3. C

   Matches Author's Conclusion22% picked this

   If a media outlet has trusted a source in the past and the source has a good reputation, the outlet should

   This does not conflict with the author. This principle is saying, "Since Mr. Hanlon has a good reputation, this newspaper should trust Mr. Hanlon, not report his claims with skepticism." The author would agree.

   22%
4. D

   Not About Newspaper7% picked this

   People who think they observe supernatural phenomena should not publicize that fact unless they can

   This is a principle that would govern Mr. Hanlon's actions, (he's the only person in this paragraph who thinks they observed a supernatural phenomenon), but the argument is concluding something about the newspaper's actions, so a conflicting principle needs to tell us something different about what the newspaper's actions should have been.

   7%
5. E

   Different Conclusion2% picked this

   A newspaper should not publish a report unless it is confirmed by

   This is saying, if Mr. H's report was newspaper not confirmed by an ? should not publish independent source Mr. H's report Our author's conclusion is about whether or not the newspaper showed bias in using a skeptical tone in its report, while this principle is about whether or not the report should have been published at all. Given that our author seems to be suggesting that the newspaper should have reported Mr. H's claims, without skepticism, her argument does kind of go against this principle. But because the left side and right side of this principle are not a good match for the sort of wording found in the argument's premise and conclusion, this loses out to the correct answer, whose left side and right side discuss concepts that are much closer to the concepts discussed in the argument.

   2%