Several movie critics have claimed

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct82% picked this

   infers that a claim is false merely on the grounds that no satisfactory evidence for

   Why this is right

   Even if we weren't aware of the Unproven vs. Proven False famous flaw, we can test whether this answer is valid by trying to match up its parts. The thing being inferred is the conclusion (or in rare cases, an assumption). The grounds on which we infer something is the evidence. Is the author's conclusion saying that a claim is false? Yes, it says "these critics have made a claim that is untrue" Is the premise saying that no good evidence has been offered? Yes, it says "this claim relies entirely on data that turned out to be badly flawed" If we can match the abstract description to the argument, then it's a correct answer.

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

   82%
2. B

   Trap4% picked this

   fails to consider that a pejorative claim that is true can be more harmful to a person’s reputation

   Not an Objection Relative vs. Absolute: more harmful First, some vocab: "pejorative" means insulting or derogatory. When I say "my friend Paul is gay", that's not a pejorative sense of 'gay'. When people (twenty years ago) would say "oh, I don't like chess. I just think it's kinda gay." That's using 'gay' as a pejorative, which we thankfully don't or shouldn't do anymore. Was their a pejorative claim in this argument? Not really. Would it be an objection to say that an insulting claim can be more harmful to reputation than a false claim? Not at all. "Reputational harm" is tacked onto the conclusion for no reason other than creating trap answers. The author's evidence doesn't try to support that this claim is potentially harmful to reputations. Even if it were a meaningful part of the conclusion, the author is only claiming that the claim is potentially harmful, not more harmful than other things. If I conclude that "eating cheeseburgers every day is bad for your health", you can't object to my conclusion by saying, "you fail to consider that smoking two packs of cigarettes every day is even worse for your health".

   4%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   relies on a sample that is likely to

   This refers to the famous flaw Sampling, and since it says "flawed survey data" within the paragraph, students might pick this just thinking maybe we were doing a sampling flaw. But the author is pointing out that her opponents relied on a bad sample; she's not relying on a sample.

   2%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   attacks the persons making an argument rather than attacking the substance

   This refers to the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which you invalidate someone's argument by saying that they had an ulterior motive biasing them or that they have conflicting past behavior that makes it hard to believe their present claims. In doing so, Ad Hominem authors are failing to actually confront their opponents' arguments -- they don't engage with the evidence their opponents are putting forward. That's definitely not a match for what's going on here, because our author is engaging with her opponent's evidence. She's saying, "since their evidence was flawed, their conclusion is false".

   2%
5. E

   Reversed Parts10% picked this

   fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the evidence used to justify that

   The correct version of this would say fails to consider that, even if the evidence used to justify an argument's conclusion is flawed, the argument's conclusion may nonetheless be true.

   10%