Buyer: As a buyer for a large

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence/Validity Match16% picked this

   A snowflake will melt if it is in a warm place and not protected by insulation. This snowflake is in a warm place, but

   This answer places the compound condition in the sufficient position ("if warm AND not insulated, then melts"), not the necessary position. In the original, the compound condition is necessary (buy only if fashionable AND affordable). Additionally, this answer concludes the snowflake will not melt because it is insulated, which constitutes denying part of the sufficient condition — an invalid inference (illegal negation). The original argument validly denies one of the necessary conditions. Both the structural placement of the compound condition and the validity of the reasoning differ from the original.

   16%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   A stuffed animal, in order to pass inspection, must be free of sharp edges and completely sealed. This stuffed hippo is free of sharp

   Why this is right

   This answer perfectly replicates the original's structure. The first premise establishes a compound necessary condition: to pass inspection, a stuffed animal must be free of sharp edges AND completely sealed (Pass -> Free of sharp edges AND Sealed). The second premise states the hippo is free of sharp edges (one necessary condition met) but not completely sealed (other necessary condition unmet). The conclusion: the hippo will not pass inspection. Via the contrapositive: Not free of sharp edges OR Not sealed -> Not pass. Since the hippo is not sealed, the contrapositive is triggered, and the conclusion follows validly. Every structural element matches: compound necessary condition, one met and one unmet, valid denial.

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

   79%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   A sidewalk is accessible if its edges are fully graded and if it has no sizable bumps. This sidewalk’s edges are fully graded, and

   This answer has a compound condition in the sufficient position ("if fully graded AND no bumps, then accessible"), and both conditions are met, leading to a conclusion that the sidewalk is accessible. The original has a compound necessary condition with one condition unmet. Here, both are met and the conclusion follows by affirming the sufficient condition — a valid inference, but a completely different logical pattern. The original concludes something will not happen because a necessary condition is unmet; this answer concludes something will happen because all sufficient conditions are met.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Evidence/Validity Match3% picked this

   A poetic translation is accurate only if it adequately expresses the meaning of the original poem and gives an idea of the meter. This

   This answer has the compound condition in the necessary position (accurate only if expresses meaning AND gives idea of meter), matching the original structurally. However, both necessary conditions are met, and the conclusion states the translation is accurate. This is an illegal reversal — affirming the necessary condition does not establish the sufficient condition. In the original, one necessary condition was unmet and the conclusion validly denied the sufficient condition. Here, both are met and the conclusion invalidly affirms it. The evidence pattern (both conditions met vs. one unmet) and the validity (invalid vs. valid) both differ.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion/Validity Match1% picked this

   An assembly may call a meeting of the executive board only if the assembly meets quorum requirements and the motion passes by two-thirds. This

   Multiple mismatches disqualify this answer. First, only one necessary condition is confirmed (meets quorum requirements), while the status of the other (two-thirds vote) is left open — unlike the original, where one is confirmed and one is definitively denied. Second, the conclusion is a conditional statement ("unless the motion does not pass by two-thirds, this assembly may call a meeting"), whereas the original's conclusion is a simple categorical statement. Third, the conclusion commits an illegal reversal: from ACM -> Q AND MP2/3, plus Q, it concludes MP2/3 -> ACM. The structure, conclusion form, and validity all differ from the original.

   1%