Legislator: the recently passed highway bill

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   gives no reason to think that the predicted election outcome would be different if the majority party had

   Why this is right

   It's true that the author provides to reason to think the majority party wouldn't be losing so many seats if it hadn't supported the highway bill. But does that speak to a logical problem with the argument? Yes! It speaks to the Causal flaw. Why should we believe this causal storyline the author invented, in which we should blame the loss of seats in the upcoming election on the highway bill? Who said that the highway bill is the causal difference-maker that's responsible for the predicted election outcome? Couldn't there be other reasons? The author hasn't given us any compelling reason to believe his explanation is plausible. He is concluding that this highway bill is unpopular, and his only premises are that the majority party supported the bill and will lose seats in the upcoming election. He's clearly assuming that these two things are related. And this answer is just saying, "He's assuming these two things are related", which is accurate. If the election outcome would be the same whether or not the majority party supported the highway bill, then those two things are not related.

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

   72%
2. B

   Out of Scope Objection4% picked this

   focuses on the popularity of the bill to the exclusion of

   We can't say, "Hey, author -- you're focusing on popularity, when you should be thinking about the merits of the bill as well." He would just say, "I'm not arguing that the bill is good or bad, so I don't need to talk about its merits. I'm only arguing that it's unpopular with voters, so it makes sense for my evidence to only care about the bill's popularity."

   4%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw22% picked this

   infers that the bill is unpopular from a claim that presupposes

   Wrong Flaw: Not Circular Bad Evidence Match This answer refers to the famous Circular reasoning flaw, in which the evidence is a restatement of the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. Circular reasoning answers are wrong at least 95% of the time we see them. But if we don't know that, we can examine this answer by doing what we always do when we see "infers X from a claim that Y". We can ask ourselves whether X matches with the Conclusion/Assumption and whether Y matches the evidence. This argument does infer that a bill is unpopular. That matches the Conclusion. But is the evidence a claim that presupposes unpopularity? In order to claim "the majority party supported Bill X", do we have to presuppose that "Bill X is unpopular"? No. In order to claim "the majority party is expected to lose more than a dozen seats", do we have to presuppose that "Bill X is unpopular"? No.

   22%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   takes for granted that the bill is unpopular just because the legislator wishes it

   If an answer says that an author "takes for granted that X because Y", we can ask ourselves whether X matches the Conclusion/Assumption and whether Y matches the evidence. The author certainly concludes/assumes that the bill is unpopular. Do we have a premise that says, "The legislator wishes it to be unpopular"? Nope. We have a premise that says the majority party supported the bill and a premise saying the majority party is expected to lose more than a dozen seats.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   bases its conclusion on the views of voters without establishing their relevant expertise on

   This says that the conclusion is based on views of voters. Was the evidence of this argument telling us about the views of voters? Not at all. It told us that the majority party supported the highway bill and that the majority party is expected to lose seats in the upcoming election. The conclusion itself is about the views of voters, not the basis for the conclusion.

   2%