PT154 S2 Q17 ExplanationConsultant: The mayor shouldn't adopt

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Weak Conclusion Match Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   Zvi should continue practicing his instrument over the vacation. If he stops, he risks losing ground on what he has already mastered. And if

   The conclusion is a quick red flag, since it's saying we should do something, not shouldn't. But potentially they could still be pretty logically similarly to the original argument by giving us premises that are like, "After all, if he stops practicing and X happens, something bad. If he stops practicing and X doesn't happen, something bad." The easier way to kill this answer is that the two premises don't have opposite triggers. In the original, it was if it succeeds, something bad if it fails, something bad This argument's premise triggers are if he stops if he loses any ground Those aren't opposites. The 2nd one was chaining onto the first one.

   3%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match20% picked this

   Joni should not self-publish her novel. It is unlikely that most readers will take a self-published novel seriously, and any success she does have

   The conclusion is potentially fine, but we need a pair of binary conditionals for our evidence. If self-publishing goes well, this bad thing happens. If self-publishing goes poorly, this bad thing happens. Instead the two premises just bring up separate considerations that aren't linked by some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" binary.

   20%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   Despite his current financial predicament, Brett should not sell his comic book collection. It will certainly continue to grow in monetary value. Additionally, its

   The conclusion is potentially fine, but we need a pair of binary conditionals for our evidence. If selling his collection goes well, this bad thing happens. If selling his collection goes poorly, this bad thing happens. Instead the two premises just bring up separate considerations that aren't linked by some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" binary.

   1%
4. D

   Correct73% picked this

   Alvin should not submit his paper for presentation at the conference. He might not have time to meet his publisher’s deadline if the paper

   Why this is right

   The conclusion is saying someone shouldn't do X. The evidence is a pair of conditionals, with opposite triggers, showing that either way you slice it, something bad happens: if paper is accepted, bad thing. if paper is rejected, bad thing.

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

   73%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   Elisa should call the tourist agency now to reserve a spot on the tour. If she waits much longer, she risks not being able

   The conclusion is that someone should do something, not shouldn't, so it starts off with a big red flag. This argument does go off a pair of binary premises, but it's not a damned if you do, damned if you don't combo. It's a "if we do X, bad thing ... if we don't do X, good thing". if wait longer, bad thing. if call now, good thing. Thus, should call now. The original argument was more like, if X goes this way, bad thing. if X goes the other way, also bad thing. Thus, should not do X.

   3%