PT150 S3 Q9 ExplanationMarketing agent: A survey of my business

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that the business clients who made more than $100,000 last year made only

   Does it weaken the argument to say that the ones who eclipsed $100k barely surpassed that threshold? Nope. If their previous max was 10k, and now they are at least 100k, then it's mathematically correct to say they've increased their profits at least tenfold. (Math nerds -- you might have thought, they've only increased their profits 9x. $100k is 1000% of $10k, but it's only a 900% increase. But the usage of twofold / threefold is to mean a percentage of, not a percent increase, even though people say "increased twofold". In other words, if I used to make $8 / hr and now I make $16 / hr, we can say my new wage is 200% of my old one or my new wage is a 100% increase of my old one or my wage just increased twofold)

   3%
2. B

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   fails to explain why some of the business clients who made a profit did not increase their profits

   Can we weaken this argument by saying, "Well how come that other 10% didn't increase their profits tenfold?" No. The author isn't saying that everyone she helps gets a tenfold increase. She successfully wins her argument if it's a true claim that 90% of her clients increased their profits tenfold last year.

   3%
3. C

   Correct84% picked this

   draws a conclusion about all of the business clients from premises about the business clients who made

   Why this is right

   This speaks to the fact that the Evidence was about "Of those clients who are profitable, 90% did X", to a Conclusion that is saying "90% of my clients did X".

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

   84%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   treats conditions that are sufficient for making a profit as though they are necessary for

   This answer describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise but then applies the rule in an illegal backwards or opposite fashion. There was no conditional logic premise here, so this answer can't match.

   3%
5. E

   Contradicted7% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that not all of the business clients made an annual profit of more

   She is definitely not overlooking that — she's directly acknowledging that possibility, since she's only saying that 90% of clients went from $10k to $100k+.

   7%