X: Medical research on animals should not

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct70% picked this

   contradicts a premise on which X’s

   Why this is right

   X said that there would be an inevitable trade-off between human and animal welfare with this sort of research, and Y's alternative method implicitly contradicts that premise. Inevitable = unavoidable, but Y is showing it's possible to do the research humans need without engendering animal suffering. There doesn't have to be a tradeoff. Animal suffering is avoidable.

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

   70%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match (no disagreement)13% picked this

   disagrees with X about the weight to be given to animal suffering as opposed

   The respondent never directly disagrees with the relative weight of human versus animal welfare; she merely proposes avoiding animal suffering through an alternative.

   13%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match (no logical consequence)1% picked this

   presents a logical consequence of the premises of

   There is no logical consequence presented that follows from accepting the original argument. The response instead suggests an alternative, not directly deriving an implication.

   1%
4. D

   Opposite (strengthening X)5% picked this

   strengthens X’s argument by presenting evidence not mentioned

   The response does not strengthen the original argument; it provides an alternative that challenges the necessity of the original method.

   5%
5. E

   Opposite (supporting X's arg)10% picked this

   supplies a premise to X’s argument that was not

   The response does not supply a premise meant to support the argument. Rather, it offers a conflicting idea suggesting a different approach.

   10%