Food co-ops are a type of consumer

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Conclusion/Evidence Match11% picked this

   By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that people who own sports cars use much more gasoline in their cars than people who

   The fact that this argument only has one premise whereas the original argument had two is a quick reason to keep moving on. The flaw here is about usage rates, meaning our objection would be like, "Even though sports cars use more gas per mile, people might drive their sports cars way less than other cars and thus not use much more gas overall." It would be as if the original were, "Food co-ops offer a cheaper price than other stores for more products. Thus, people who shop at food co-ops spend way less money on groceries than people who don't."

   11%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw19% picked this

   By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that it is better to buy frozen vegetables than fresh vegetables, since fresh vegetables are more

   Our objection to this would be about weighing the upsides / downsides of buying fresh vs. frozen. We would try to counteract the two advantages of frozen (cost less, don't spoil as quickly) with disadvantages (taste worse, don't have the same vitamin content). Our original objection had nothing to do with weighing pros and cons. It was about questioning whether food co-ops really had the trait that is usually the case in their broader category of consumer cooperatives.

   19%
3. C

   Correct53% picked this

   By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that a person who rides a bicycle causes more pollution per mile traveled than one who

   Why this is right

   This fits our original structure well, and in vulnerable to a similar objection. P1: X is a type of A. Bikes are a type of private transportation. P2: A's are usually more B than ~A's. Private transportation is usually more polluting than non-private. C: X will be more B than [example of ~A]. Bikes are more polluting than buses. We definitely know from common sense that bikes do not pollute more than buses (bikes don't have any exhaust, so how could they pollute at all). Bikes might be an exception within the broader category of private transportation.

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

   53%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match Topic Trap6% picked this

   By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that more people must be shopping at health food stores than ever before, since people tend

   The fact that this is also about shopping at health food stores is close enough in topic to the original (shopping at a food co-op vs. a supermarket) that we should be deeply suspicious. The evidence here doesn't involve the "X is a type of broader category A", so there's no way it will be vulnerable to the same objection of, "What if X happens to be an exception within its category?" Our objection here would be something like, "Just because healthful food is better-tasting than ever doesn't mean it's at least as good-tasting as unhealthful food". Just because something is going up doesn't yet mean it's reached the level of something else.

   6%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match11% picked this

   By that line of reasoning, we could conclude that the best way to lose weight is to increase one's consumption of artificially sweetened foods,

   As soon as we see the conclusion is saying "best", rather than a comparative "more / less", we should be skeptical. The evidence lacks the crucial "X is a member of broader category A" dimension that the original argument had.

   11%