A birth is more likely to be

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Circular18% picked this

   It assumes what it sets out

   This answer describes one of the top 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the evidence restates the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. This answer is almost never correct. This argument did not restate its conclusion as a premise. And none of the premises logically necessitate the conclusion.

   18%
2. B

   Correct66% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that fewer children are born to women over 40 than to

   Why this is right

   This is what we were predicting. We can object to this author that, "Yes, a women over 40 is more likely to have an ambidextrous child, but women over 40 are only responsible for 10% of babies born, so even though women under 40 are less likely to have an ambidextrous child, they have so many more babies than do women over 40 that these younger women are still going to produce a higher total number of ambidextrous babies." We could call this argument an example of the classic % vs. #'s flaw, in which an author assumes that a higher percent therefore represents a higher raw number.

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

   66%
3. C

   Never a Correct Answer4% picked this

   It fails to specify what percentage of people in the population as a

   This type of answer shows up a lot on Flaw but is never correct. It asks for specific names, specific measurements, specific amounts, specific definitions. We're here to judge reasoning flaws, not scrutinize the exact details. Would it make any difference to this argument whether 17% of the population as a whole is ambidextrous vs. 19% of the population? Of course not. Neither specific percentage would change this reasoning at all.

   4%
4. D

   Not Necessary0% picked this

   It does not state how old a child must be before its handedness

   When an answer says that the author fails to establish X does not specify / state X we're implying that the author should have done so. Their argument needed them to specify X. Does this author need to tell us the precise age at which point we ascertain whether you're leftie, rightie, or ambidextrous? No, it wouldn't make any difference to the conversation whether you have to be 3 years old vs. 5 years old before we can make that determination.

   0%
5. E

   Not Necessary12% picked this

   It neglects to explain how difficulties during birth can result in

   When an answer says that the author fails to establish X does not specify X neglects to explain X we're implying that the author should have done so. Their argument needed them to specify / establish / explain X. Does this author need to tell us how a turbulent trip down the birth canal results in ambidexterity? No, it wouldn't in any way affect how we assess the very quantitative conclusion. We're accepting the premise that difficult births are more likely to end up with an ambidextrous baby, and we're scrutinizing whether accepting that fact will force us to believe that more ambidextrous babies came from older moms.

   12%