Given the shape of the hip

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match Not Sampling0% picked this

   The argument incorrectly generalizes from the behavior of a few bears in support

   This is alluding to the famous Sampling flaw, in which an author presents evidence about a small set of data points and then concludes that the same thing would be true for a larger set of data points. But the evidence in this argument didn't refer to "a few Kodiak bears".

   0%
2. B

   Correct91% picked this

   The argument fails to consider the possibility that walking on hind legs is the result of both learning

   Why this is right

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would be an Objection. If we say that "walking on hind legs is both learned and innate", is that an objection? Sure! The conclusion said that "walking on hind legs is not learned", so this is basically contradicting part of the conclusion. That definitely weakens, so this counts as an objection. More conversationally -- the author was thinking that since the Kodiak bear has anatomical features that make it a great candidate for walking, its walking must be by anatomical design, not by learned behavior. And this answer is just saying, "couldn't it be that the anatomical underpinnings were there, but the Kodiak bear also required some learning in order to walk the way it does?" We could look at the bodies of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and say, "Their sprinting or swimming skills, respectively, are instinctive not learned." But the reality is that they're both -- they have body types that are particularly well suited to their sports, but they still had lots of training (i.e. learning) to optimize that capacity.

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

   91%
3. C

   Not Equivocation2% picked this

   The word "behavior" illicitly changes meaning during the course of

   This describes the famous Equivocation flaw, in which a term or concept gets used two different times in two very different ways. The word behavior does have different meanings. It can just mean 'a certain action taken by an organism', like when we say, "The honeybee's wiggle dance is a curious behavior that scientists think is communicating to other honeybees the location of a food source". And behavior can mean 'how someone conducts themselves', like when we say, "The prisoner was released early from his sentence, for good behavior." But this argument only spoke about behavior in that first sense.

   2%
4. D

   Too Strong: all6% picked this

   The argument presumes, without giving justification, that all behavior can be explained in one or both

   Since this answer begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves, "Did the argument need to assume this?" Like so many assumption answers on Flaw, this one is way too strong. This author didn't commit herself to the incredibly strong idea that 100% of all behavior can be explained as instinctive, learned, or both. This author might believe that some behavior is just random and can't be explained by either of those two ways (that wouldn't hurt their argument at all). Also, as the correct answer reminds us, in the case of the Kodiak bear the author is thinking that it's instinctive and not learned, so we have no reason to say that this author assumes behavior can be explained by both of these two ways.

   6%
5. E

   Not Inappropriate Appeal Not a Flaw1% picked this

   The argument incorrectly appeals to the authority of science in order to

   This answer choice refers to the famous Inappropriate Appeal flaw. The author's only evidence (i.e. the only thing they appealed to) was a fact about the hip shape and foot bones of the Kodiak bear. Is that first sentence appealing to "the authority of science"? No. Perhaps science was involved in helping us ascertain that the Kodiak's hips and feet make it a natural walker, but the sentence doesn't mention science at all and isn't appealing to its authority. Beyond the fact that this answer doesn't descriptively match the argument, we also might eliminate this answer by thinking, "what's wrong with appealing to science in order to support a conclusion?" Why would we ever object to an author by saying, "Hey, no fair ... you supported your conclusion with science!" It would have to be a conversation where science had no bearing, but the topic of whether a certain behavior is instinctive or learned is certainly within the purview of science.

   1%