Consumer advocate: Manufacturers of

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw4% picked this

   The argument confuses a necessary condition for reducing the number of injuries caused by a product

   This describes the #1 most common famous flaw: Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author provides a conditional (if X, then Y) and then makes a backwards or reversed argument: Bob is Y. Bob is not X. So, Bob is X. So, Bob is not Y. There was conditional logic here (only if), so we should definitely consider this answer. But the problem wasn't that the author used the conditional in a reversed or negated fashion; it was just that the author never triggered the conditional. Since the conditional was (doesn't reduce injuries ? shouldn't overstate), then an argument committing this error would say one of these two: Overstating does reduce injuries. Thus, X should overstate. X should not have overstated. Thus, apparently overstating didn't reduce injuries.

   4%
2. B

   Not an Objection8% picked this

   The argument overlooks the possibility that warnings that do not overstate the dangers that their products pose do

   This would only hurt your point of view if your point of view were that "Every warning that avoided overstating dangers (they correctly-stated or understated danger) has always reduced injuries". Our author definitely didn't hold that crazy position. If we're weakening this argument, the Anti-Conclusion we're arguing is that "it still might be that manufacturers should overstate the dangers" (even if they're not doing it to reduce injuries, it might be reducing injuries, and that could be a good reason to overstate the dangers).

   8%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw1% picked this

   The argument relies on a sample that is unlikely to

   This refers to the famous Sampling flaw, but this argument doesn't appeal to any sample in its evidence. It refers to everything in categorical language. It never shifts from talking about "these manufacturers" to some bigger group of people. All three references are to the same category name: Manufacturers often overstate. Manufacturers overstate only to avoid lawsuits. Manufacturers should not overstate.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match12% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a warning overstates a danger, then the warning will

   Since this answer says "presumes", we analyze it like Necessary Assumption. Whenever we see conditional answers on Necessary Assumption, we can ask ourselves whether the author made that move. Did our author go from saying "Since this warning overstates a danger, we can conclude that it will fail to prevent injuries"? No the author went from saying "Since these warnings were written merely to protect the company from lawsuits, we can conclude that these warnings should not be on the toys." We would also be fine with an answer pointing out the author's assumption, "Since these warning were written merely to protect the company from lawsuits, we can conclude that these lawsuits do NOT help to reduce injuries."

   12%
5. E

   Correct75% picked this

   The argument relies on the unjustified assumption that an action has an effect only if it was performed in order

   Why this is right

   Well, this ended up basically testing the famous flaw Intent vs. Consequence Taking the contrapositive of this "only if" idea, we can see this answer is accusing the author of making this move: if an action wasn't that action won't have performed to bring ? the effect of bringing about X about X Did the author make that sort of move? Yes, the author assumes that since the action (overstated warning) wasn't performed to bring about [injury reduction], it was done merely to avoid lawsuits we can infer the action (overstated warning) didn't have the effect of bringing about [injury reduction]. We know the author assumed this second idea, because her argument looks like this: if doesn't reduce injuries, shouldn't overstate. M's don't overstate in order to reduce injuries. (assumption: overstating doesn't reduce injuries) Thus, M's shouldn't overstate.

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

   75%