PT150 S2 Q17 ExplanationAdvocate: A study of people

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   treats something as true simply because most people believe it to

   Any time we see an answer structured treats something as X because Y the Y should match the Evidence and the X should match the Conclusion. Does the author conclude something is true? Yes, she concludes that "taking cold meds is counterproductive" Is the evidence saying that "most people believe that [taking cold meds is counterproductive]"? Definitely not. The evidence is a study that found a correlation.

   2%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   treats some people as experts in an area in which there is no reason to take them to

   This refers to the famous Inappropriate Appeal (to dubious expert) flaw. Did the author appeal to any people as though they were experts? Nope. The author just announces the finding of a study and then she concludes something based of that finding.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   takes something to be true in one case just because it is true

   Any time we see an answer structured takes something to be X just because it is Y the Y should match the Evidence and the X should match the Conclusion. Does the author conclude something is true? Yes, she concludes that "taking cold meds is counterproductive" Is the evidence saying that "in most cases, [taking cold meds is counterproductive]"? Definitely not. The evidence is a study that found a correlation. It's not a generalization about what is true in most cases.

   4%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw8% picked this

   rests on a confusion between what is required for a particular outcome and what is sufficient

   This refers to the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which the author presents a conditional rule and then applies it illegally in some backwards or opposite fashion. Did this argument have a conditional logic premise? Nope. So that's a death knell for the Necessary vs. Sufficient answer.

   8%
5. E

   Correct84% picked this

   confuses what is likely the cause of something for an effect

   Why this is right

   This is one type of answer for the famous Causal Flaw, in which the author is overconfident in concluding one possible causal explanation for the evidence, when other possible explanations exist. In this case, they're highlighting the alternative explanation of Reverse Causality, the idea that the author judged that correlation backwards. She thought: taking cold meds ? worse symptoms This answer is saying, couldn't it be taking cold meds ? worse symptoms ? (Note: notice how this answer is not certain that reverse causality is happening; it's only saying it's a possibility or a likely possibility. Answers that say mistakes cause for effect definitively are always wrong)

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

   84%