The police department has two

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Flaw Match6% picked this

   It has been known for some time that the Wrightsburg Zoo might build a new primate house and that it might refurbish its polar

   This is somewhat similar. There are two options presented. But instead of the author assuming, "one of these has to be a YES", this argument is assuming "one of these has to be a NO". The author is illicitly thinking that the two options are mutually exclusive (if one is a YES, the other must be a NO). The original argument was thinking that at least one of the options had to be correct (if one is a NO, then the other must be a YES).

   6%
2. B

   Topic Trap5% picked this

   If Watson, a robbery suspect, had been picked out of a police lineup by the victim, then charging Watson with robbery would have been

   Topic Trap: burglary / robbery Bad Evidence Match As soon as we see the first premise is conditional, we can pretty much bail. It should also smell very fishy that they're using a very similar topic (who's the burglar? who's the robber? who are the suspects?) The flaw here is a Nec vs. Suff error, because the author is thinking if the trigger isn't true, then the outcome isn't true.

   5%
3. C

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match4% picked this

   If Iano Industries does not borrow money so that it can upgrade its factories, it will be unable to compete. While it is undesirable

   This one doesn't really have any matching features. It has a conditional premise, which immediately should cause us to bail. The conclusion is a "should" claim, which could immediately cause us to bail.

   4%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   Baxim Corporation announced last year that it was considering moving its headquarters to Evansville and that it was also considering moving to Rivertown. But

   Why this is right

   This replicates the False Choice of the original. The author is thinking that "one of these two options is definitely the one", even though there was never any language cinching in that idea. This author, like our original argument, is assuming "If one of them is a NO, then the other must be a YES". But just like the original argument, this is vulnerable to the objection of "isn't it possible that both of them are NO's, and we just need to expand our list of contenders?" Our original author thought the burglar must be S or F, but all we knew is that S and F were two suspects under consideration. This author thinks that Baxim will move to E or R, but all we know is that E and R are two sites under consideration.

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

   72%
5. E

   Pretty Valid Bad Evidence Match12% picked this

   The only viable candidates in the mayoral race are Slater and Gonzales. Political analysts believe that Slater has little chance of winning. Therefore, it

   This argument can't replicate our False Choice flaw because in this argument the author does establish that the two options being discussed are the only two options we are allowed to consider: the only viable candidates are S and G If we were objecting to this argument, we'd pretty much be stuck arguing that "political analysts don't know what they're talking about", and that's not similar to the original argument.

   12%