PT154 S2 Q14 ExplanationSuperintendent: Within the school district

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Too Strong: impossible to disprove0% picked this

   uses evidence that is in principle impossible

   The author's evidence tells us about the dropout rates for high school students overall compared to the dropout rate for high school students who participate in work internships. The dropout rate is not something that is "in principle impossible to disprove". The only evidence that really qualifies for that label would be private, internal thoughts, or conversations with someone who is now dead or unable to verify their supposed remarks.

   0%
2. B

   Not Equivocation0% picked this

   uses the key term “student” in one sense in a premise and in another sense

   This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Equivocation, in which the author uses the same term or concept two different times to mean two very different things. This answer is almost always wrong. In both cases that the author uses "students", she is consistently referring to people in school.

   0%
3. C

   Not Sampling6% picked this

   generalizes from a single instance of a certain kind to all instances

   This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Sampling, in which the author relies on a sample that we are given reason to think is too small, self-selecting, or unrepresentative for some reason. This author relies on statistical data, not a sample. And she's not going from any evidence that cites a single instance of a certain kind. This answer describes an argument that sounds like, "The cheerleader I met loves tofu. Thus, all cheerleaders love tofu."

   6%
4. D

   Correct93% picked this

   infers a specific causal relationship from a correlation that might well have arisen

   Why this is right

   This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Causal, in which the author presents a curious fact such as a correlation and then overconfidently assumes one possible causal explanation for that correlation. Any time a Flaw answer is structured like infers X from Y we would want X to match the conclusion and Y to match the evidence. Was the conclusion talking about "a specific causal relationship"? Yes, "Participating in work internships decreases the chance that a student drops out". Was the evidence a correlation? Yes, the author presented evidence showing that "students who do internships are less likely than those who don't to drop out". Could this correlation be explained some other way, such as that both traits are really being caused by some underlying condition? Sure, maybe family wealth is the secret underlying cause. Because the family is wealthy, they can afford to help their children succeed in school (either by having time to help them or hiring tutors if needed). And the family wealth also means that the student doesn't feel pressured to go out and get a paid job. They can do an unpaid internship, since their family isn't counting on them to bring in some more income. We don't have to actually think of this 3rd factor, such as family wealth, to pick this answer. It's just an example of what they're alluding to when they say the correlation may have another cause.

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

   93%
5. E

   Not Circular1% picked this

   contains a premise that presupposes the truth of

   This answer refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the author's evidence restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. This answer is almost always wrong. Neither premise requires that the conclusion is true.

   1%