The availability of television reduces

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct52% picked this

   Whenever the money supply in an economy fluctuates, interest rates tend to fluctuate. When the money supply remains constant, interest rates tend to remain

   Why this is right

   The conclusion is a causal claim: constant money supply leads to stable interest rates We want to see two covariation premises, and we do: when constant money supply is absent (i.e. when money supply fluctuates), stable interest rates is absent (i.e. interest rates fluctuate) when constant money returns (i.e. supply remains constant), the stable interest rate effect returns.

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

   52%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match13% picked this

   The consumption of candy between meals disrupts a child's appetite at mealtimes. When candy is not consumed, blood sugar declines until mealtime, so the

   This conclusion gives us a causal connection: eating candy causes mealtime appetite to be disrupted We would now want to see two premises that do a little "no cause, no effect / cause returns, effect returns". The first premise should sound like when candy is not consumed between meals, the appetite isn't disrupted But that's not what the first premise says. And the second one should say, "when candy is again consumed", and the second premise has nothing to do with that.

   13%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   Global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Furthermore, industrial pollution causes increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So

   This conclusion gives us a causal connection: industrial pollution causes global warming We would now want to see two premises that do a little "no cause, no effect / cause returns, effect returns". The first premise should sound like when industrial pollution is not present, global warming subsides. But that's not what the first premise says. And the second one should say, "when industrial pollution comes back, global warming starts up again", and the second premise doesn't say that.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match10% picked this

   Voting behavior is affected by factors other than political candidates' records of political achievement. For example, a candidate who projects confidence will gain votes

   This conclusion doesn't give us a specific causal connection: factors other than record of achievements affects voting behavior How are we going to do covariation with this? when factors other than record of achievements are not present, voting behavior is not present? That sounds like nonsense, so this doesn't even get off the ground.

   10%
5. E

   Trap21% picked this

   Adults read less than they once did because there are so many other activities to divert them. This can be seen from the fact

   Bad Premise Match Topic Trap: also about reading This conclusion gives us a causal connection: other activities cause adults to read less This is feeling very nonspecific, like (D). Our covariation premises would sound like when other activities are absent, adults read more and when these other activities return, adults read less again Instead, we get when we do more of these activities, they read less and the less they read, the more they do these other activities Our original argument has when cause is absent, effect is absent when cause returns, effect returns This answer is saying when we do more of cause, we get more of effect when we do more of effect, we get more of cause

   21%