PT150 S2 Q22 ExplanationThe writers of the television show Ambitions

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match9% picked this

   If a company’s failure is due to a broader economic collapse, then it is not fair to blame the company’s executives for the failure.

   This does have a conditional, but it's not a plan with an effect, so it's not very tempting to engage with this answer. A quick glance at the Conclusion also reveals that the Conclusion is the wrong strength (the original conclusion is sure of itself but this one is only "probably"). The argument doesn't try to argue through a contrapositive direction. Instead, it establishes part of the trigger and then concludes that the outcome is probably true. Original argument This argument X knows "A leads to B." A due to B → C X doesn't want B. B happened. So, X won't do A. So, probably C.

   9%
2. B

   Invalid Logic13% picked this

   If a company’s failure is due to a broader economic collapse, then it is not fair to blame the company’s executives for the failure.

   This does have a conditional, but it's not a plan with an effect, so it's not very tempting to engage with this answer. The argument doesn't try to argue through a contrapositive direction. Instead, it establishes the trigger isn't true and then concludes that the outcome is probably true. Original argument This argument X knows "A leads to B." A due to B → ~C X doesn't want B. B didn't happen. So, X won't do A. So, C.

   13%
3. C

   Only One Premise15% picked this

   If ViqCo’s executives were responsible for the company’s failure, then it must be possible to say what they should have done differently. Therefore, if

   This does have a conditional, but that's it! There's no second premise, so there's no way this could be arguing via a contrapositive. The conclusion is the contrapositive (almost), but that's not the same thing as presenting a rule "A → B", presenting a fact that the outcome isn't happening "~B." and then concluding that the trigger won't happen "~A." Original argument This argument X knows "A leads to B." A due to B → ~C X doesn't want B. So, C → ~A* So, X won't do A. The conclusion isn't valid on this argument because the contrapositive would be "If you can't say what should have been done differently, then the execs weren't responsible for the failure", which is slightly different than "the execs shouldn't be blamed for the failure".

   15%
4. D

   Correct58% picked this

   If ViqCo’s executives were responsible for the company’s losses, then ViqCo's losses would have been greater than those of its competitors. But ViqCo’s losses

   Why this is right

   This argument also has a contrapositive structure. It's weirdly different from the original in the sense that it's not about a plan, its intended consequences, the knowledge of the people involved, etc. But in terms of how the author reaches her conclusion, it's similar: - there's a conditional - the right side ain't gonna happen - thus, the left side ain't gonna happen X knows "A leads to B." E responsible → VL > CL X doesn't want B. VL < CL. So, X won't do A. So, ~E responsible

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

   58%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match5% picked this

   Since ViqCo’s failure was due to a broader economic collapse, it is not fair to blame the company’s executives for the failure. But that

   There's no conditional rule at all in these premises, so this one doesn't get off the ground.

   5%