A new treatment for muscle

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct85% picked this

   since the judges in a baking contest did not have uniform criteria for selecting a winner, the cake that won

   Why this is right

   This replicates the idea of a certain experiment / study / trial having some sketchy methodology -- there's no uniform criteria for selecting a winner? So how do the judges know how to score these cakes against each other? And it replicates the conclusion that assumes the results of the experiment / study / trial are probably the opposite of what was found. The three studies found that the treatment looked very effective, so the author concludes the treatment probably isn't effective. The judges found that cake X was the best cake, so the author concludes that cake X was probably not the best. This feels less like Unproven vs. Proven False and more like "shady methodology doesn't mean incorrect results". The latter is still a version of the former, but it would probably be easier to like this answer if we were searching for the latter rather than the former.

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

   85%
2. B

   Different Flaw1% picked this

   since some people who fish seldom catch any fish, they probably have some reason for fishing

   This is testing one of the semi-famous flaws: Intent vs. Result It's assuming that because the people who fish ended up with the result of not catching fish, that their intent must not have been to catch fish.

   1%
3. C

   Different Flaw7% picked this

   since some foods have very little nutritional value, people who include those foods in their

   This seems to commit the famous flaw of Part vs. Whole It's assuming that because part of some people's diet (certain foods) have a trait (little nourishing value), that their overall diet has that same trait (little nourishing value).

   7%
4. D

   Different Flaw1% picked this

   since all scarves are at least somewhat decorative, it is likely that when scarves were first adopted,

   This is sort of committing the Intent vs. Result flaw. Somehow we've ended up in a world (result) with all scarves being at least somewhat decorative. The author is assuming that the intent of scarves must therefore have been purely decorative. It's also making a move from "All A's are at least somewhat X" to "the first A's were purely X". There's not really a name for that flaw, but it doesn't resemble the original argument's move from "The thing that found X to be true had a flawed methodology" to "X is probably not true".

   1%
5. E

   Different Flaw7% picked this

   since all members of the city council have a financial stake in the city's development, any development proposal they make is likely

   This is testing one of the famous flaws: Ad Hominem It's acting like anyone with a biased interest in something will be motivated purely by that interest, not by legitimate, substantive things.

   7%