PT148 S4 Q16 ExplanationLast year, a software company

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Causal7% picked this

   infers a causal relationship when the evidence only supports

   There wasn't any correlation presented in the evidence, just a rule about all contest entrants getting a T-shirt. The author is assuming / inferring that entering the contest is what caused Juan to get the T-shirt. We would be fine calling out this and saying that the author is failing to consider alternative explanations for how Juan could have gotten the T-shirt. But if the Cause / Effect relationship being inferred is CAUSE: Juan entered contest EFFECT: Juan got T-shirt then this answer is saying, "The evidence only supports a correlation between Juan entering the contest and Juan getting a T-shirt", but that's not accurate. A correlation is a before/after relationship, a concurrent relationship, or a statistical relationship. Maybe if we really, really wanted to stretch definitions, we could try to make this answer work, but it wouldn't be the "best available" answer, since there is an answer choice naming the conditional logic flaw the argument is making, which is how the argument is most vulnerable to criticism.

   7%
2. B

   Correct86% picked this

   takes a condition that is sufficient for a particular outcome as one that is necessary

   Why this is right

   "Entering the contest" is sufficient for the particular outcome of "getting the new T-shirt": Everyone who enters would receive the new T-shirt. Enter contest ? T-Shirt The author's reasoning is that, "If Juan has T-shirt, then Juan entered contest". T-shirt ? Enter contest In her reasoning, "enter contest" is on the right side, the necessary condition. More conversationally, we're saying, "Yes, entering the contest is one possible / sufficient way to get a T-shirt. But that's not the only way to get a T-shirt. No one said you had to enter the contest to get one. Maybe people who buy software from the company get a T-shirt. Maybe Juan attended an office party with his husband (who works there), someone spilled wine on Juan's shirt, and they gave him a T-shirt to change into"

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

   86%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Part vs. Whole3% picked this

   infers that every member of a group has a feature in common on the grounds that the group as

   Is the author's conclusion saying "every member of a group has a feature in common"? Nope, it's saying "Juan entered the contest". There's no Part to Whole move happening here.

   3%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular2% picked this

   has a premise that presupposes the truth of

   Is the author's evidence a restatement of her conclusion? Nope, it's just saying "Juan entered the contest". There was no premise that said / assumed that Juan entered the contest, just the conclusion.

   2%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Sampling2% picked this

   constructs a generalization on the basis of a

   Is the author's conclusion a generalization? Nope, it's saying "Juan entered the contest". And this conclusion was based on a conditional rule (everyone who enters gets a shirt) plus a fact that Juan has a shirt.

   2%