Advertisement: VIVVY, a video-based

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct89% picked this

   Similarly, you could conclude that you can expect to win the lottery if you carry a good-luck charm. After all, Annie, Francisco, and Sean

   Why this is right

   This argument also has a really small sample (again, just 3 people), and it assumes that what happened to them when they carried a good-luck charm (winning the lottery) will happen to all of us if we carry a good-luck charm. The author is implicitly assuming that the good-luck charm played some meaningful causal role, when we could explain the lotto winning different ways.

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

   89%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match0% picked this

   Similarly, you could conclude that Jesse should not expect to get food poisoning. After all, Jesse, Doris, and Christine all attended the company picnic,

   This can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Jesse. To replicate the Sampling move, we need to go from "Since X was true about this small group who did Y, then anyone who does Y will get X."

   0%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match Valid Logic3% picked this

   Similarly, you could conclude that Eric, Diane, and Martin are the only employees who will be laid off. After all, any employee hired within

   This can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Eric, Diane, and Martin. It also happens to be pretty valid logic, since there is a conditional that says "if you were hired in the last year, then you can expect to be laid off".

   3%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   Similarly, you could conclude that Ken, Norma, and Mary routinely drive faster than the speed limit. After all, if you routinely exceed the speed

   This can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Ken, Norma, and Mary. To replicate the Sampling move, we need to go from "Since X was true about this small group who did Y, then anyone who does Y will get X." This argument happens to be reading a conditional backwards. It said, "If you routinely speed, you'll get a speeding ticket", and then it assumes that people who get speeding tickets automatically can be known to routinely speed.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match Reversed Parts5% picked this

   Similarly, you could conclude that Jack, Stephen, and Tina can expect to get jobs after they complete their university education. After all, these three

   Wow, all four answers had a disqualifying conclusion right out of the gate. Again, this can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Jack, Stephen, and Tina. To replicate the Sampling move, we need to go from "Since X was true about this small group who did Y, then anyone who does Y will get X." This argument is a little more tempting because it does have a generalization and a sample. But the generalization is one of the premises. And the dubious sample is the conclusion.

   5%