The universe as a whole

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct45% picked this

   Wooded Lake is one of the most beautiful lakes in the world. This follows from the fact that the extensive system of interconnected lakes

   Why this is right

   Premise The system of lakes that Wooded Lake is a part of is one of the most beautiful systems in the world. Conclusion Wooded Lake is one of the most beautiful lakes in the world. How do we sort out the argument pieces? Claim 1. This follows from the fact that Claim 2. Claim 1 follows from Claim 2 (which is a fact). So claim 1 is the conclusion that follows logically from the factual premise of claim 2.

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

   45%
2. B

   Weak Conclusion Match23% picked this

   This has been the coldest April in this region in the last half-century. So, on any given day this April, it is likely

   Because this conclusion is moderately worded ("likely that"), it's not as objectionable as the original argument. Both the original and (A) were like, "From this fact alone we are sure!" Knowing that the whole of April was on average the coldest, it's fair to say that any given day was probably colder than you'd normally expect.

   23%
3. C

   No Part vs. Whole23% picked this

   The manifest indicates that every deck on that cruise ship houses some commercial cargo, even though on some decks the cargo storage areas are

   Both the premise and the conclusion are about "every deck on that cruise ship", so there isn't any switch being made from "the Whole has Trait X" to "a Part of that whole has Trait X". This argument makes this move: since every deck has some commercial cargo, every deck is devoted to commercial cargo If we tried to stretch that into Part vs. Whole, it would go from Part to Whole. The original argument goes from Whole to Part.

   23%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   Although Hopper claims to have been working in another part of the plant when the accident occurred, company records show that every person on

   The conclusion here doesn't match the original argument at all. It's an either/or claim. There's a bit of a Part / Whole feel between Hopper and the crew he's a part of, but there's no Part vs. Whole flaw in thinking, "since every person on the crew was in the grain area at Time X, then Hopper (who is a member of the crew) was in the grain area at Time X." Every person on the crew is X isn't a fact about a Whole. It's a fact about every single Part. The crew is X is a fact about a Whole.

   6%
5. E

   Part to Whole Reversal4% picked this

   Two of the seven critical parts in that gear assembly are unsafe to use, even though this is not obvious upon a casual inspection.

   This argument goes from Part to Whole, but the original argument went from Whole to Part. Premise: - two of the assembly's parts are unsafe Conclusion: - the whole assembly is unsafe

   4%