PT153 S3 Q11 ExplanationStudies have shown that those who take daily

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   To be classified as a hurricane, a tropical storm in the Atlantic Ocean must have sustained wind speeds of over 74 miles (119 kilometers)

   Since the original conclusion is a conditional claim with a "probably" strength, this conclusion here doesn't look at all tempting. It could be written as a conditional, but it would have a certain outcome "are not hurricanes". We can bail for that reason on a first pass. If we needed to dig deeper, we would see that the premise is a rigid "to be X, you must be Y" rule. Our premise was "people who are X are less likely to be Y".

   2%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   Everyone who ate the tuna salad prepared in the cafeteria has contracted botulism. So those who ate other dishes prepared in the cafeteria

   The conclusion is making a "probably" prediction, so this is worth reading. However, the evidence isn't giving us a claim like, "People who are X are more/less likely to be Y". It's giving us a Universal: All who ate tuna got botulism.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Laboratory rats given an extremely low-calorie diet live up to 20 percent longer than do those given a more ordinary diet. So most people

   This conclusion is not a "probably"-strength prediction, so we can bail on a first pass. If we looked deeper, we'd also notice a switch from evidence about "rats" to a conclusion about "people". The original argument definitely didn't contain any category switch like that.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   People who train diligently to play poker can achieve a certain level of proficiency, so those players owe their

   The conclusion is a very strong, categorial claim: People owe their success to X alone We're looking for a softer conclusion: People who are X are probably Y That's reason enough to bail on a first pass. If we looked deeper, the premise is not at all of the form "people who are X are more likely to be Y".

   1%
5. E

   Correct95% picked this

   Automobile engines that undergo regular oil changes are more likely to be problem free than are those that do not. So automobiles with engine

   Why this is right

   Good news -- the structure was enough! Our original algebra was like this: P: ppl who are X are less likely to be Y C: something that is Y is probably not X P: People who take daily C are less likely to have cold. C: So someone that has cold is probably not taking daily C. This argument is saying, P: Engines that get regular oil changes are more likely to be problem free. C: So engines with problems probably don't have regular oil changes. We would just have to rearrange how that first sentence gets expressed to line up the same "less likely": P: Cars that get regular oil changes are less likely to have engine problems. C: So if a car has an engine problem, it probably doesn't get regular oil changes. And just like the original argument (and our analogous one about U.S. citizens), this logic doesn't have to hold. There might be way more cars that get regular oil changes than don't. So even though those oil changes make you less likely to have an engine problem, there are still going to be a ton of cars that have regular oil changes that still end up with engine problems.

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

   95%