PT152 S1 Q25 ExplanationStallworth claims that she supported the proposal

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct50% picked this

   According to the TV news, the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street. But if the accident occurred on Aylmer Street, Morgan could not have

   Why this is right

   It's easier to match this up with the He Said / She Said objection than by using the "conditional premise with an AND trigger". TV news: accident occurred on A street Morgan: saw accident from kitchen window Conditional: y'all can't both be right. If it was on A street, then M couldn't see from window. Conclusion: I'll just arbitrarily say that the newspaper was wrong. Us: Couldn't Morgan be the one who's wrong? We could interpret the original argument in that same style: S: I supported it H: I supported it Conditional: Y'all can't both be right. If you both supported it, it would have gotten approval. But it didn't. Conclusion: I'll just arbitrarily decide that H is the one who is saying something false. Us: Couldn't it be S that's saying something false? This is a really tough problem / correct answer, and a good reminder that the correct answer on Parallel Flaw will sometimes stray pretty far from matching certain structural features of the original argument. What a correct answer must do is be vulnerable to a similar objection.

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

   50%
2. B

   Weak Premise Match9% picked this

   According to the city government, 15 percent of city residents are behind on their property taxes. But according to a private institute, property taxes

   We do have two different points of view, but we don't establish in the evidence that "they can't both be right". It's possible they're both right -- 15% are behind on taxes and taxes in this city are higher than average.

   9%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match14% picked this

   According to Kapoor, the hazardous-waste disposal site does not pose an imminent danger to the community. But according to Galindo, the disposal site is

   This conclusion is conditional, whereas the original one was just a declarative fact. And this conditional seems to be avoiding the essence of the original flaw. Rather than arbitrarily picking a winner in a He Said / She Said conflict, the conclusion is responsibly not committing. It's just saying, "If she's right, he's wrong".

   14%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match11% picked this

   According to Harris’s political rivals, she consistently favors the interests of property developers. A good mayor must be willing to stand up to the

   This conclusion isn't saying "thus She's right, He's wrong". It's just offering an evaluation. There's no He Said / She Said debate in the evidence. Definitely nothing resembling the "they can't both be right" tension we need to replicate the original flaw.

   11%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match15% picked this

   According to the latest government figures, the regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months. But the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

   We don't have any "they can't both be right" tension in the evidence. It's possible for regional unemployment to decline even while thousands of manufacturing jobs are lost. If other jobs are being created in non-manufacturing sectors, those could outweigh the jobs lost in manufacturing and allow unemployment to go down.

   15%