PT148 S4 Q11 ExplanationUniversity spokesperson: Most of the

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct81% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that the students surveyed were unaware that only Hall Dining Services could be hired if the

   Why this is right

   When Flaw answer choices begin with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, then, assuming that the author did fail to address this, we can ask ourselves, "Does this sound like a weakening Objection?" Could it hurt this argument if we said that the students surveyed didn't realize when they voted for a new vendor that the only option was reverting back to the vendor they had bailed from the previous year? Yes, potentially. If you as a student were asked whether you'd rather stick with the current food vendor or make a switch, you're presumably thinking about the mediocre quality of your current dining hall food and judging, "I'd rather take my chances on something new than keep eating what we've had this year". You're comparing what you know of this year's food to the unknowable of "some other vendor". That mental calculation takes on a very different contour if you're comparing what you know of this year's food to what you know of the previous year's food. Naturally, it's possible that students loved the previous year's food from Hall Dining and that it was the university's decision to terminate that relationship before. This answer doesn't prove that students would have changed their vote from "switch vendors" to "stick with current vendor". But it does open up a big can of doubt, and that's enough to weaken an argument. If all the other answers fail us, then "creating some doubt" might still be our best objection.

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

   81%
2. B

   Too Strong: likely4% picked this

   relies on a sample that is likely to

   This refers to the famous Sampling flaw, but we have no reason to trust or distrust this sample. If we switched this answer to say, "relies on a sample that is potentially unrepresentative", then it would be fine. Since the argument has not provided us with any assurances that this sample is large / diverse / representative, it's certainly fair for us to worry about the sample. But it isn't fair for us to say "it's more likely than not to be unrepresentative". We would need some detail about it that is sketchy (like they only asked students in upper level physics classes) in order to say that it's probably skewed.

   4%
3. C

   Doesn't Overlook8% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that student preference is not the only factor to be considered when it comes to deciding which food

   As we said with (A), we would ask ourselves "Does this answer weaken the argument?", but only if it's accurate to say the author failed to consider this possibility. Here, it's not fair to say the author overlooked other possible factors. By saying, "other things being equal, students' preferences should be adhered to", the author is acknowledging that other factors could affect our decision.

   8%
4. D

   Not an Objection / Not Overlooked2% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that there is disagreement among students concerning the issue

   We might debate whether the author really overlooks this possibility. By saying that "most students surveyed said they would prefer bailing from the current food vendor", the author has allowed for the possibility that some students would prefer keeping the current food vendor. Whether the author overlooked it or not, the idea would not weaken the argument. The author is simply saying in one of her premises that we should adhere to the preferences of the majority of students. There might be disagreement among students, but if there's still a majority opinion, then that disagreement is irrelevant to the logic here.

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong: merely6% picked this

   argues that a certain action ought to be undertaken merely on the grounds that it

   The conclusion does argue that a certain action ought to be undertaken (we should rehire Hall Dining next year). But is the only premise a claim that "it would be popular"? No. First of all, there isn't any premise that says "rehiring Hall Dining would be popular". We only know that "replacing the current food vendor would be popular (a majority of students would approve)". The reason the author's conclusion isn't "we should hire a different vendor next year" and instead is "we should rehire Hall Dining next year" is because of the other premise that tells us that Hall Dining is our only alternative vendor option.

   6%