Every Labrador retriever in my

Answer choices

1. A

   Different Conclusion Type18% picked this

   All the students at Bryker School excel in their studies. However, students at Bryker School would not excel if they did not have good

   This argument's conclusion is a prescriptive recommendation: all schools should hire good teachers. The original's conclusion is explanatory: training, not genetics, explains good behavior. For a parallel flaw, the conclusion types must match. The original wrongly eliminates an alternative cause by pointing to a necessary condition. This answer makes a universal recommendation about what schools should do -- a different type of reasoning error. An explanatory conclusion that dismisses an alternative cause is structurally different from a prescriptive recommendation, even if both involve some notion of necessary conditions.

   18%
2. B

   Correct51% picked this

   Whenever it snows there are relatively more car crashes on the highways. Yet in general, there would not be car crashes unless people were

   Why this is right

   This answer perfectly mirrors the original's structure and flaw. The original: all neighborhood Labs are well-behaved, no pet is well-behaved without training, therefore training -- not genetics -- explains the behavior. This answer: snowy days have more car crashes, no crash occurs without driver carelessness, therefore carelessness -- not icy roads -- explains the crashes. Both commit the identical error: identifying a necessary condition (training / carelessness) and using it to exclude an alternative contributing factor (genetics / icy roads) as the explanation for an observed phenomenon. But a necessary condition can coexist with other causes. Carelessness might be necessary for crashes AND icy roads might also contribute. Training might be necessary for good behavior AND genetics might also help. Both arguments wrongly elevate necessity to exclusive causation.

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

   51%
3. C

   Different Flaw Structure19% picked this

   Every musician I know is a good dancer. Every mathematician I know is a bad dancer. Thus, it is a sense of rhythm, not

   This argument draws connections between musical ability and dance, and between mathematical ability and counting, in a way that involves faulty analogies between domains. The reasoning error here concerns improper category mapping -- conflating distinct types of skills and drawing unsupported connections between them. The original's specific flaw is different: it identifies a necessary condition and uses it to exclude an alternative cause. This answer lacks the clear "nothing happens without X, therefore X alone explains it" structure that characterizes the original. The premises do not include a necessary condition claim that parallels "no pet is well-behaved without training."

   19%
4. D

   Missing Alternative-Cause Dismissal6% picked this

   All of the good cooks in my country use butter, not margarine, in their cooking. Thus, if you want to be a good cook,

   This argument has a simpler structure: good cooks use butter, therefore you should use butter to cook well. It generalizes from a correlation to a recommendation. Crucially, there is no competing explanation being dismissed. The original says "it is training, NOT genetics." This answer does not say "it is butter, NOT skill" or "it is butter, NOT fresh ingredients." Without that explicit dismissal of an alternative factor, the argument lacks the signature element of the original's flaw. The original's error is specifically about pitting two potential causes against each other and wrongly declaring one the winner based on necessity alone. This answer does not create that two-factor competition.

   6%
5. E

   Different Flaw Type6% picked this

   All of the students in my algebra class received an A, even though none of them can solve word problems. No student who is

   This argument highlights a disconnect between students' grades (they got A's) and their actual abilities (they cannot solve word problems), then concludes they did not do good work. The reasoning error concerns measurement validity -- whether grades accurately reflect competence. The original's flaw is entirely different: it identifies a necessary condition, uses it to conclude that this condition is the sole explanation, and dismisses an alternative factor. This answer does not feature competing explanations for an outcome, a necessary condition claim, or the dismissal of an alternative cause. It operates in a different logical territory from the original.

   6%