The return of organic wastes

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match5% picked this

   Plants thrive if they get an abundance of moisture, light, and nutrients. In greenhouses, plants get an optimal combination of all three, which is

   First we look for the conditional (if = left side) get an abundance of moist / light / nutrient → thrive From there, we know the argument has to give us another premise that says "Thing A is thriving" and then conclude "Thing A must be getting an abundance of moisture, light, and nutrients". But the 2nd premise does not say "Thing A is thriving". In fact "thriving" isn't even mentioned again in the argument.

   5%
2. B

   Basically Valid8% picked this

   When every country has equal access to markets, which will be the case 20 years from now, globalization of markets will provide a way

   First we look for the conditional (when = left side) every country has equal globalization will access to markets → give a way for each country to optimize From there, we know the argument has to give us another premise that says "the right side of this conditional is happening" and then conclude "the left side of this conditional is happening". Instead, the other premise is a fact that is saying, "in 20 years, the left side of the conditional will be happening". Thus, we could fairly conclude that "in 20 years, the right side of the conditional will be happening", and that's more or less what the conclusion here does do. In symbolic terms, we were looking for this: Premise 1: X → Y Premise 2: For thing A, Y is true. Conclusion: For thing A, X is true. We got this: Premise 1: X → Y Premise 2: In 20 yrs, X is true. Conclusion: In 20 yrs, "Y" is true.

   8%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   To be viable, a business idea must be clear, cost-effective, practical, and responsive to a market demand. Your idea for a website information service

   Why this is right

   This provides a conditional (must = required idea, Right side), provides a factual premise saying the right side is true, and then concludes that the left side is true. Premise 1 X → Y Viable → Clear + cost-eff + pract + resp Premise 2 For thing A, Y is true. Your idea is (Clear + cost-eff + pract + resp) Conclusion For thing A, X is true. Your idea is Viable.

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

   64%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match Valid Logic18% picked this

   Those competitors—and only those—who meet all of the following criteria are eligible for the award: they must be under 19 years of age, be

   The conditional rule supplied here is a bi-conditional rule. There's no such thing as doing an Illegal Reversal with a bi-conditional rule, because bi-conditional rules go in both directions. So we know right from the jump that this will be wrong. Bi-conditional wording: if and only if if but only if when and only when then and only then those and only those This argument says that "those competitors who meet the criteria are eligible. You meet the criteria, so you're eligible", which is perfectly valid logic.

   18%
5. E

   Different Flaw5% picked this

   A meal is nutritious only if it includes both carbohydrates and protein. Almost 80 percent of the calories in what I ate for lunch

   This provides a conditional and then attempts to reason via contrapositive logic: "the right side isn't true. Thus the left side isn't true." We're looking for Reversed Logic, in which the author says "the right side is true. Thus the left side is true." "Only if" = necessary / right side Nutritious → includes carbs and protein Contrapositive ~Carbs or → ~Nutritious ~Protein The argument is trying to say that "Since 80% of the calories in my lunch were from fat, I guess that means my meal didn't include carbs or didn't include protein. Thus my lunch was not nutritious." The flaw here is that even though 80% of the calories were from fat, it's still possible that the lunch included carbs, protein, or both. So the flaw is that the author hasn't fully established the contrapositive trigger. In the original argument, author fully establishes that the outcome is true and then illicitly concludes that the trigger is true. We wanted this Premise 1: X → Y Premise 2: For thing A, Y is true. Conclusion: For thing A, X is true. We got this Premise 1: X → Y Premise 2: For thing A, "Y" is not true. Conclusion: For thing A, X is not true.

   5%