PT152 S4 Q16 ExplanationEditorial: The main contention of Kramer’s book

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   concludes that one party is not to blame for a particular outcome merely on the grounds that another party is

   Since this answer describes a 2-part move, concludes X on the grounds that Y, we should try to match X up with the conclusion and Y up with the evidence. The conclusion is indeed saying that one party (coal companies) are not to blame for a particular outcome (region’s economic difficulties). But the evidence didn’t say that some other party is to blame for the region’s economic difficulties. The evidence just said that Kramer’s premise was false.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   concludes that a person’s statement is false merely on the grounds that, if accepted as true, it would impugn the

   Since this answer describes a 2-part move, concludes that X merely on the grounds that Y, we should try to match X up with the conclusion and Y up with the evidence. The conclusion is indeed saying that a statement is false (Kramer’s main contention). But the evidence didn’t say that “If Kramer were right, this would impugn the reputation of the coal industry, which is an important industry”. The evidence said, “Kramer’s premise was false”.

   2%
3. C

   Not Ad Hominem9% picked this

   rejects an argument merely on the grounds that the person offering the argument has an ulterior

   This answer describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw. The author does reject an argument, but doesn’t do so because she thinks that Kramer has an ulterior motive for making it. She rejects his conclusion because the premise on which he based it is false.

   9%
4. D

   Not Necessary vs. Sufficient18% picked this

   takes a sufficient condition for the coal companies’ having made significant investments in other industries in the region to be a necessary

   This answer describes the #1 famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the argument presents a conditional rule as a premise and then tries to apply that rule in an illegal backwards or negated fashion. This argument did not have a conditional logic premise, so there’s no way this could be right.

   18%
5. E

   Correct70% picked this

   concludes that a person’s statement is false merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has

   Why this is right

   This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. The author did indeed conclude that someone’s statement is false (Thus, the main contention is simply false), and the evidence was indeed a description of the inadequate argument Kramer made to support his contention. He based his contention primarily on allegations that our author tells us are not true. Thus, Kramer’s support was inadequate to prove his conclusion. But of course that doesn’t prove that the conclusion itself is false.

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

   70%