Lobbyist: Those who claim that automobile

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   inspecting commercial airplanes for safety is unnecessary because the number of commercial airplane crashes has decreased

   The conclusion here isn’t anti-causal. It’s saying that “inspecting isn’t necessary”. That’s enough of a mismatch to bail.

   9%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   smoking cigarettes is not bad for one’s health because not all cigarette smokers

   The conclusion is anti-causal, but the evidence needs to sound like, “These people smoked cigarettes over a certain time period, and their health measures improved during that time.” The premise in this answer is simply, “some people who smoke don’t get smoking illnesses”.

   2%
3. C

   Correct86% picked this

   using a cell phone while driving is not dangerous because the number of traffic accidents has decreased since the

   Why this is right

   This has the anti-causal conclusion, “Using a cell phone doesn’t cause more dangerous driving”. And it has a premise that says during the time period where cell phones have been present (since the invention of the cell phone), there seems to be [less dangerous driving], since number of traffic accidents have decreased. But just like the original argument, we can argue, “Sure, but the number of accidents would be even lower if people weren’t on their cell phones.”

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

   86%
4. D

   Weak Evidence Match3% picked this

   skydiving is not dangerous because the number of injuries to skydivers has decreased

   This is concluding that skydiving does not cause a dangerous situation. Is its evidence citing a correlation between the emergence of skydiving and a decrease of danger? Not quite. It just says “in recent years”, there have been fewer injuries. Is this argument vulnerable to the objection of, “Sure, but there would be even fewer skydiving injuries if there were no skydiving”? No. That’s sort of a cheap, vacuous objection. e.g., “There would be fewer bear attacks if there were no bears.” In the original argument and in the correct answer, we can argue that other things are changing that are making the background situation better, whereas the thing from the conclusion is still keeping the situation from being better than it is. ORIGINAL: Public health indicators have gotten better because of advances in medicines, screening, and therapies. But they would be even higher than they are without us suffering the adverse effects of car exhaust. CORRECT: There are fewer traffic accidents nowadays because of better traffic signs, lower speed limits, better safety features on cars. But there would be even fewer accidents if people weren’t using their cell phones while driving. There’s no analogous way to do that with (D).

   3%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match0% picked this

   people with insurance do not need to lock their doors because if anything is stolen the insurance company

   The conclusion here isn’t anti-causal. It’s saying that “inspecting isn’t necessary”. That’s enough of a mismatch to bail.

   0%