A popular book argues

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct81% picked this

   It mistakes the claim that something is required for a purpose for the claim that it is

   Why this is right

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, which could be a decent guess (if we didn't know what to pick) based on the fact that this is a Flaw question and has conditional logic in it. This answer is saying that the book just said that luck was required for success; it didn't say that "all you need is luck in order to succeed", that luck is sufficient to guarantee success. Had it said that, the author's response of, "wait sec --- don't you also need a lot of hard work?" would make total sense. The author's response doesn't make sense in the actual argument, but we can describe the author's flaw by describing how the author got confused. But this answer is a little shady, not gonna lie. The book never said that "luck was required for success". It simply said that all data points with the trait of 'success' also had the trait of 'luck'. A perfect correlation between two things "Every A, without exception, has B true of it" does not have to indicate a necessary relationship moving forward, i.e. "Every future A we see will also have to have B be true of it". But we file this in our hurt locker of "it's the best available answer, even though it's a somewhat broken answer".

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

   81%
2. B

   Opposite3% picked this

   It accepts a view as authoritative without establishing the authority of the source

   The author is rejecting this book's view as authoritative. This answer describes a version of the famous Inappropriate Appeals flaw, in which an argument appeals to emotion, fear, or an "expert" whose expertise has not been established.

   3%
3. C

   Not Circular4% picked this

   It takes for granted in a premise what it is trying to prove

   This answer describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, in which an argument's evidence restates or assumes the truth of the conclusion. The evidence is "Success requires a lot of hard work". The conclusion is "Some successful businesspeople did not benefit from a lot of luck". The evidence is not, therefore, restating or assuming the conclusion.

   4%
4. D

   Not Causal9% picked this

   It treats an effect of something as the cause of

   This answer describes the famous Causal Reasoning flaw, in which an author overconfidently concludes one possible causal explanation for something, even though alternate explanations potentially exist. If there were a correlation between X and Y, and the author concluded that X caused Y, we could point out that "Hey, it's possible you're interpreting cause and effect backwards". This argument was nothing like that. The author isn't looking at a correlation and inferring a causal relationship.

   9%
5. E

   Not Ad Hominem2% picked this

   It attacks the source of an argument rather than attacking the substance

   The author doesn't attack the source of the argument. It isn't saying, "Don't listen to that book. After all, the people who wrote that book have a vested interest in convincing you that luck is important."

   2%