PT154 S4 Q9 ExplanationMartin: I have heard it argued

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match2% picked this

   The fact that only one person can win a marathon is no reason for Jen to avoid participating in the marathon, since every participant

   The premise and conclusion both should be causal claims: Just because X doesn't do A doesn't mean we shouldn't suggest X. After all, doing X brings about other good things. These ideas sound more like descriptive / statistical facts, not causal claims.

   2%
2. B

   Correct93% picked this

   The fact that the engineers could not solve the problem is no reason to deem their work a failure, since their work

   Why this is right

   The original argument was saying, The fact that [diet / exercise] usually can not solve the problem of [weight loss] is no reason to deem that behavior change a bad idea, since that behavior change nonetheless has other beneficial effects. This answer choice is saying, The fact that [engineer's work] could not solve the problem is no reason to deem their work bad work, since their work nonetheless had other beneficial effects. It's definitely not identical structurally, but they both play off the same principle of, "let's not be sour on X. Even though it didn't do A, it managed to some other good thing!"

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

   93%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   The fact that Chester was unsuccessful in his first attempt to grow a vegetable garden is no reason for him to give up, since

   To match the original, we want to be saying, "Even though your action didn't achieve the intended goal, it still achieved some other positive outcome". This situation sounds like Chester's attempt at gardening didn't achieve the intended goal of growing vegetables, but there isn't a premise saying "but it did achieve this other positive outcome". Instead, it's just saying, "Probably one day the action will achieve the intended outcome". That would be like if the original argument had said, "If doctors keep giving this advice, they'll generally help someone lose weight eventually."

   1%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion Match Bad Premise Match0% picked this

   The fact that the construction project is costing more than expected is no reason to halt it, since the project’s backers were well aware

   The conclusion isn't exactly a causal scenario. It's saying that something is costing more than expected, not that something failed to do its intended goal. And the premise isn't pointing out that there was some secondary benefit that was achieved. It's just pointing out that whatever bad thing we're currently observing was something that was expected.

   0%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   The fact that the company’s charitable act is also a public relations stunt is no reason to criticize the charitable act, since

   The original was saying, "Just because an action [saying "change your diet / exercise"] doesn't result in the intended outcome [weight loss], that doesn't mean the action was bad, because the action has some other beneficial effect." This is fairly close, because the premise is saying "the action has some beneficial effect" (the charity is laudable in itself. But the conclusion doesn't have an action that failed to achieve its intended outcome. It's saying "Just because we have an ulterior motive for our action doesn't mean our action is bad. After all, our action is still having a beneficial effect."

   3%