Agricultural scientist: Wild apples

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection6% picked this

   fails to consider that even if a plant was not cultivated in a given region at a specific time, it may have been cultivated

   When we see fails to consider / overlooks possibility of X, we can just ask ourselves, "If X is true, would it weaken?" When the answer additionally has a 2-part rhythm, "fails to consider that even if Y, it may be not X", then the Y should match the evidence and the X should match the conclusion. Even if your Premise is true, it may be that your Conclusion is false. This answer is hopelessly jacked up in that regard. It says, "Even if apples weren't cultivated in this region 5,000 years ago", so it's starting by saying, Even if your Conclusion is true, this unmentioned idea may be false.

   6%
2. B

   Correct69% picked this

   fails to consider that plants that have been cultivated for only a short time may tend to resemble their wild counterparts much more closely

   Why this is right

   When we see fails to consider / overlooks possibility of X, we can just ask ourselves, "If X is true, would it weaken?" Does it hurt the argument if we say that when you first cultivate plants they tend to look like the wild version? Only after a long time do cultivated plants stop resembling their wild counterparts? Sure! That allows us to make an excuse for why the remains of these ancient "cultivated" apples make it seem like the ancient apple was the size of the wild one. If they had just started cultivating apples 5,000 years ago, the first few generations of apples will still resemble the wild ones, since the first seeds planted are from wild ones. The first few generations of domesticated dogs still looked like wolves. It's only after many, many rounds of selective breeding that you change the appearance of something through domestication. The fact that these ancient apples were wild-size doesn't necessarily mean that the apples were wild; they could have been the early stages of cultivating apples, when the apples would still resemble wild apples.

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

   69%
3. C

   Too Strong15% picked this

   takes for granted that all apples are either the size of wild apples or the size of the cultivated

   When we see takes for granted / presumes that X, we can just ask ourselves, "Was this author assuming X? Does X need to be true for the argument to work? If we negated X, would it weaken?" We would definitely not say the author needed to believe that 100% of apples are either wild size or supermarket size. If we negated this and said, "There is one apple I once had that was about halfway in between wild size and supermarket size", that wouldn't hurt the argument in the slightest.

   15%
4. D

   Not Self-Contradiction4% picked this

   employs a premise that is incompatible with the conclusion it is

   This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Self-Contradiction. Like Circular and Equivocation, Self-Contradiction is almost never correct. The language that "premises are incompatible" or "inconsistent" means they contradict each other. As you can imagine that almost never happens because it would sound really weird. The premise about finding remains of apples that are the same size as wild apples would be contradicted if the conclusion said, "Therefore, the remains of apples we found suggest that the apples were not the size of wild apples".

   4%
5. E

   Not Circular5% picked this

   uses a claim that presupposes the truth of its main conclusion as part of the

   This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular reasoning. Like Self-Contradiction and Equivocation, Circular is almost never correct. In a circular argument, the evidence restates the conclusion or the evidence says something that requires that you already believe the conclusion. Neither of those things happens here.

   5%