PT155 S2 Q11 ExplanationPsychologist: Specialists naturally tend

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Sampling3% picked this

   generalizes about all specialists on the basis of an

   This refers to one of the other famous flaws, Sampling. According to this answer choice, the Conclusion is a generalization about all specialists, and the Evidence is some unrepresentative sample of specialists. Can we match that up? No, the conclusion is not a generalization about all specialists. It's a claim specifically about geneticists, and only those geneticists who claim a certain thing.

   3%
2. B

   Too Strong2% picked this

   presumes that the traditional view must be the right view simply because it is what

   Too Strong: must be Bad Conclusion Match Any flaw answer choice saying presumes that X simply because Y is saying that X is the Conclusion (or needed to draw the conclusion) and Y is the Evidence. Did this author conclude that "the traditional view must be true" / "these personality traits are definitely not genetically determined"? Nope, it was "we are justified in being skeptical when geneticists tell us that they are genetically determined". That is much squishier than "traditional must be right". We always want to be wary of strong language when we're reading Necessary Assumption answers on Flaw, answers that begin with these phrases: takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish

   2%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular6% picked this

   draws a conclusion that is merely a restatement of one of

   This refers to one of the other famous flaws, Circular reasoning. According to this answer choice, the Conclusion restates a premise. The conclusion was "we are correct to be skeptical when geneticists claim that personality traits are genetically determined". Was there a premise that also said that? Not even close. The two premises said: - specialists then to view their specialties as crucial - geneticists are probably amplifying their sense of importance

   6%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Inappropriate Appeal1% picked this

   appeals to the authority of those unlikely to be well informed about the

   This refers to one of the other famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeals. This flaw is when an author's entire evidence is either someone's opinion ("Tommy says global warming is fake, so it must be fake") or is an appeal to fear/emotion rather than logic, ("Tommy says he'll be demoralized if we're squandering our last chance to abate the worst effects of climate change. Thus, we're not squandering our last chance.") Our author here doesn't appeal to authority for support. In fact, his whole argument is designed at casting doubt on authority.

   1%
5. E

   Correct88% picked this

   disputes a claim on the basis of a supposed motive for making the claim rather than by assessing the

   Why this is right

   This describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw. Does our author dispute a claim? Sure, he says, "We are very justified in being skeptical when geneticists claim X." Is the basis of his rebuttal (his evidence) talking about the supposed motive for making the claim? Sure, he says "the geneticists are probably just amplifying their sense of their own important." Is it a flaw that the author is disputing based on someone's motive for saying something rather than by assessing the relevant evidence? Yes! The former is Twitter and the latter is logical reasoning.

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

   88%