Jack’s dog howls whenever a train goes by.

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   Every serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes. But there must be a few serious joggers who prefer to run in ordinary sneakers,

   The conclusion here goes the wrong direction. The original concludes about the second group (washings) — some of them feature the property (howling). This answer concludes about the original group (joggers) — some of them prefer sneakers. The directions of the universal and the conclusion don't line up with the original.

   12%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match8% picked this

   Most serious joggers can benefit from good running shoes. But some serious joggers prefer to run in ordinary sneakers. So some people who prefer

   This argument uses "most serious joggers can benefit," not a universal "all/whenever." The original premise is universal: the dog howls whenever a train goes by, with no exceptions. "Most" admits exceptions, which weakens the premise type. The structures don't line up.

   8%
3. C

   Correct48% picked this

   Any serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes. But a few serious joggers prefer to run in ordinary sneakers. So some people who

   Why this is right

   This matches the structure exactly. "Any serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes" is the universal — all joggers benefit. "A few serious joggers prefer to run in ordinary sneakers" is the existential — some joggers prefer sneakers. So those few joggers both benefit (from the universal) and prefer sneakers — meaning some people who can benefit from good shoes prefer sneakers. That parallels: all trains cause howling; some washings overlap trains; therefore some washings have howling. Same shape, valid in both cases.

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

   48%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match6% picked this

   At least some serious joggers can benefit from good running shoes. But there are serious joggers who prefer to run in ordinary sneakers. So

   This uses "at least some serious joggers can benefit" — an existential, not a universal. The original premise is universal: every train going by causes howling. Without a universal premise, the argument cannot guarantee the conclusion in the way the original does.

   6%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match27% picked this

   Any serious jogger can benefit from good running shoes. But some serious joggers occasionally prefer to run in ordinary sneakers. So anyone who can

   The conclusion here is "anyone who can benefit occasionally prefers sneakers" — that is a universal conclusion ("anyone"). The original concludes only "some / sometimes." Promoting an existential premise into a universal conclusion is a different (and invalid) structure.

   27%