There are only two plausible

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   This cardiac patient could be treated with surgery or angioplasty, among other methods. But his weak condition would make recovery from surgery a very

   This argument contains a whole different gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Stating that a patient "could" be treated a certain way isn't the same as stating that a patient "ought to" be treated one way or the other. Also, the evidence indicates that there are "other methods" besides surgery or angioplasty. It's not a strict dichotomy like the original argument. To be any kind of match for the original argument, the final premise would need to state that there isn't evidence that surgery would work. It only states that there would be a long recovery.

   3%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match6% picked this

   Should the company be outbid on the new project, it will either have to lay off workers or find new business. But it does

   The structure of this argument is different from the original. The evidence here contains a conditional statement, where a third factor—being outbid—triggers the either-or situation. Most importantly, this argument assumes that one possibility—laying off workers—will not happen, or at least is not expected to happen. It never states that there is no convincing evidence that the company will need to lay off workers.

   6%
3. C

   Correct86% picked this

   History is driven primarily by economic forces or primarily by political forces. But no historian has shown convincingly that history is driven mainly by

   Why this is right

   The evidence only states that "no historian has shown convincingly" that economic forces have primarily driven history. This doesn't prove that economic forces haven't primarily driven history.

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

   86%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match4% picked this

   Some analysts are forecasting that if the economy expands, the inflation rate will rise or the unemployment rate will fall. But the unemployment rate

   This is similar to choice B in that the evidence introduces an additional element, the economy expanding, which triggers the either-or condition. That's different from the original argument. This argument also lacks the flaw seen in the original. The evidence doesn't explicitly state that there is no convincing evidence for X and then assume, based on that, that X is not true.

   4%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   If the party does not change its policies, it will lose heavily in the next election. But if it changes its policies, some people

   This argument has a different structure from the original, with two conditional statements as evidence: Evidence: ~A → B A → (B is more likely) Conclusion: B This doesn't contain the same type of flaw where "X has not been proven" is assumed to mean "X is not true."

   2%