Some freelance journalists sell their work

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   Some high school teachers teach biology. No kindergarten teachers teach biology. Therefore, biology is not

   This argument states: Some high school teachers teach biology. No kindergarten teachers teach biology. Therefore, some high school teachers are not kindergarten teachers. Map the structure: Some A are B. No C are B. Therefore, some A are not C. This is actually the VALID conclusion — the one the original argument should have drawn but did not. The original's flaw was reversing the direction from "some A are not C" to "some C are not A." This answer draws the correct conclusion rather than the reversed one, so it does not replicate the flaw. It reaches the right answer using the right logic, which makes it a poor parallel for an argument that reaches the wrong answer using flawed logic.

   3%
2. B

   Quantifier Mismatch4% picked this

   Most school board members were once teachers. No one who was once a teacher prefers administrative work to teaching. Hence, few school board

   This argument states: Most school board members were once teachers. No one who was once a teacher prefers administrative duties to teaching. Therefore, most school board members do not prefer administrative duties to teaching. The structure is: Most A are B. No B are C. Therefore, most A are not C. While this has a superficial similarity, it uses "most" rather than "some" as the quantifier in both the first premise and the conclusion. The original argument used "some" in the first premise and drew a conclusion about a reversed subject-predicate pair. This argument keeps the direction consistent (A to C in both the premise chain and the conclusion) and merely passes the "most" quantifier through. The flaw pattern — reversing which group the conclusion is about — is absent here.

   4%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   Some students prefer history to mathematics. No member of the Calculus Club prefers history to mathematics. Thus, some members of the

   Why this is right

   This argument states: Some students prefer history to mathematics. No member of the Calculus Club prefers history to mathematics. Therefore, some members of the Calculus Club are not students. Map the structure: Some A (students) are B (prefer history to math). No C (Calculus Club members) are B. Therefore, some C are not A. This perfectly replicates the original's flaw. The premises validly prove that some students are not Calculus Club members — the ones who prefer history cannot be in the Calculus Club. But the conclusion reverses direction and claims that some Calculus Club members are not students. Just as in the original, the argument proves something about one group (students/freelancers) and then draws a conclusion about the other group (Calculus Club members/self-respecting writers). The directional reversal — the defining flaw — is exactly matched.

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

   64%
4. D

   Valid Reasoning17% picked this

   Some principals are harsh disciplinarians. No adviser to a debate team is a harsh disciplinarian. Hence, some principals are not

   This argument states: Some principals are harsh disciplinarians. No adviser to a debate team is a harsh disciplinarian. Therefore, some principals are not advisers to debate teams. Map the structure: Some A (principals) are B (harsh disciplinarians). No C (debate team advisers) are B. Therefore, some A are not C. This is the VALID conclusion — the one the original should have drawn. The principals who are harsh disciplinarians cannot be debate team advisers, so some principals are indeed not debate team advisers. The original's flaw was reversing to "some C are not A," but this answer correctly concludes "some A are not C." Since the reasoning here is actually valid, it cannot parallel a flawed argument.

   17%
5. E

   Valid Reasoning12% picked this

   Some teachers who let their students leave early are popular. No coaches allow their students to leave before three o'clock. Therefore, some

   This argument states: Some teachers who let students leave early are popular. No coaches allow their students to leave early. Therefore, some popular teachers are not coaches. While this might initially look like the reversed conclusion, the structure is more complex because the first premise combines two properties ("let students leave early" AND "are popular"). From "some teachers who let students leave early are popular" and "no coaches let students leave early," we validly know the teachers in the first premise are not coaches, and since those teachers are popular, some popular teachers are not coaches. The reasoning actually follows validly, making this a poor match for the original's flaw.

   12%