The only vehicles that have high resale values

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   since none of the plants in this garden have been pruned before, no plant in

   We can tell this is more than a simple reversal, since the evidence talks about "whether it's been pruned before" and the conclusion talks about "whether it needs pruning". There can't be any new ideas in the conclusion, just the same two ideas in reverse logical order. The correct conclusion here, given the initial premise, would be, Thus, if a plant has never been pruned, it must be in this garden.

   3%
2. B

   Trap1% picked this

   since the best mediators have the longest track records, the worst mediators have the

   Weak Evidence/Conclusion Match Opposite vs. Reversal This premise and conclusion are not conditional claims, so we can stop reading upon seeing that. If the conclusion were reversing the premise, it would sound like, "Thus, mediators with the longest track records are the best mediators". Instead of reversing, this conclusion tried to Flip the Illegal Light switch, by just saying the opposite of both ideas in the evidence.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   since only those who desire to become astronauts actually become astronauts, that desire must be the most important factor involved in determining

   Since the conclusion isn't a conditional idea (it's just saying that "X is the most important factor involved in Y"), we can immediately bail. If the conclusion were reversing the logic of the premise's conditional, we'd get something like, Thus, any person who desires to become an astronaut will actually become an astronaut.

   5%
4. D

   Correct86% picked this

   since all city dwellers prefer waterfalls to traffic jams, anyone who prefers waterfalls to traffic jams

   Why this is right

   Both premise and conclusion are conditional ideas. They both contain the same two concepts and simply reverse the logical order of them. Premise city dweller ? prefer waterfall to traffic jam Conclusion prefer waterfall to traffic jam ? city dweller

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

   86%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match5% picked this

   since one’s need for medical care decreases as one’s health improves, a person who is in an excellent state of health has

   This premise is not conditional. It's a Volume Dial type idea "the more improved health, the less need for medical care". Once we see the premise isn't conditional, we know we can't replicate the Necessary vs. Sufficient error (aka the Conditional Logic flaw). It's also not really a reversal. The conclusion is just an overly hyperbolic application of the volume dial idea. If someone is in excellent health, we would think that they need medical care less than someone in good to poor health. But we wouldn't be able to go to the extreme language of no need for medical care.

   5%