Fine short story writers are unlikely

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match5% picked this

   Engineers can never design an automobile that both meets high standards for comfort and safety and uses fuel efficiently, because high levels of comfort

   This conclusion starts off too certain: Engineers can never do X We want a conclusion / argument that's trying to prove something is unlikely, it probably won't happen. We can bail four words in! (as long as we're confident that first claim was the conclusion)

   5%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match6% picked this

   Historians who write grand histories synthesizing the research of many other scholars are unlikely to make many original archival discoveries, because they are unlikely

   The first claim is properly saying "A is unlikely to be B". But there's only one premise! We thought we would need three. Sometimes they cleverly get the job done with fewer, but from 3 to 1 is tough. We need evidence saying, "Here's a signature quality of historians who write grand histories", "here's a quality that goes with people who make many original archival discoveries", and "these two qualities rarely overlap".

   6%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this

   Good painters cannot become good scholars of painting. Painters are inevitably biased toward their own style of painting and,

   This conclusion starts off too certain: Good painters cannot be X We want a conclusion / argument that's trying to prove something is unlikely, it probably won't happen. We can bail four words in! (as long as we're confident that first claim was the conclusion)

   4%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match12% picked this

   Because of the vast amount of medical knowledge one needs in order to become a successful specialist and because few people have the motivation

   The first claim is properly saying "A is unlikely to be B". But the reason that A is unlikely to be B isn't that each field's signature qualities rarely overlaps. Instead, it's that in order for A to do B, it would require C and D, and most people don't have D. In order for a person to be a successful specialist, it would require vast medical knowledge, which would require a lot of motivation, and most people don't have that motivation. This is saying, "Most people don't have 1 certain quality", whereas the original argument was saying "Most people don't have 2 certain qualities in common".

   12%
5. E

   Correct73% picked this

   Those who excel at one sport are unlikely to excel at another, because it is rare for someone who has the specialized talents necessary

   Why this is right

   The first claim is properly saying "A is unlikely to be B". We need evidence saying, "Here's a signature quality of people who excel at one sport", "here's a quality of people who excel at another sport", and "these two qualities rarely overlap". They don't give us three pieces of evidence like we had in the original; they manage to package it all into one idea, but it's the same concept. This one is also more vague and generic, because we're not naming which two sports or which quality is necessary for success in each case. But this is the only argument operating on the principle of "X is unlikely to be Y, because the thing you associate with X rarely coincides with the thing you associate with Y". This correct answer shows the limitations / danger of believing too tightly in an algebraic recipe. Whenever we use diagramming on this test (for conditional logic or for parallel abstractions), we run the risk of being a prisoner of our mathematical left brain thinking and less able to use our holistic meaning right brain thinking.

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

   73%