PT151 S3 Q25 ExplanationKeeler wanted the institute to receive bad publicity

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Weak Evidence Match2% picked this

   The only people who had any reason to write the anonymous letter were Johnson and Ringwold. Johnson and Ringwold both deny doing so. Ringwold,

   This argument does restrict our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Not quite. They are similar in terms of both denying. And then we learn something about Ringwold that sounds somewhat incriminating. However, to match the original argument, we would need a premise clearly differentiating Johnson, saying "Johnson, meanwhile, says that he has never written an anonymous letter in the past".

   2%
2. B

   Weak Evidence Match23% picked this

   Carter and Whitequill were the only ones who had any motive to bribe the public official. But Whitequill would have been too fearful that

   This argument does restrict our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Not quite. We learn something about Whitequill that makes it seem like she isn't the culprit, but that same thing might also be true of Carter. To match the original argument, we would need a premise clearly differentiating Carter, saying "Carter, meanwhile, would not have been afraid that the bribery might be made public."

   23%
3. C

   Correct67% picked this

   Other than Helms and Lapinski, no one had access to the equipment on Thursday, the day it was tampered with. Thus, since Helms had

   Why this is right

   This argument restricts our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Yes. Helms had reason to tamper, and Lapinski did not. So we choose Helms as the culprit.

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

   67%
4. D

   Weak Evidence Match7% picked this

   When the bridge was designed, Fleming and Solano were the only ones capable of creating such a design. Fleming, however, had a strong reason

   This argument does restrict our options to these two people. Does it give a clear differentiator for why one of those two is more likely than the other? Not quite. We're told something that makes Fleming unlikely to be the suspect, but the same thing might be true about Solano. To match the original argument, we would need a premise clearly differentiating Solano, saying "Solano wouldn't have had a strong reason to take credit for the design, if it were hers."

   7%
5. E

   Weak Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Cutter and Rengo are the only serious candidates for designing the new monument. Rengo has designed several beautiful monuments and has connections to the

   If we're peeking ahead at conclusions, this one doesn't really have a chance. It is probable strength, not certainty. We also have the same Evidence problem that all four wrong answers had. The evidence doesn't draw any clear distinction between Rengo and Cutter. We learn that Rengo has designed several beautiful monuments and has committee connections. But maybe Cutter does too. The argument needs to explicitly rule that out and make a distinction, just like the original and the correct answer do.

   1%