Because some student demonstrations

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   Dr. Pacheco saved a child’s life by performing emergency surgery. But surgery rarely involves any risk to the surgeon. Therefore, if an act is

   There was no conditional in the Evidence. Instead, the Conclusion was itself a conditional. The original conclusion is not a conditional statement. It's factual.

   6%
2. B

   Only One Premise3% picked this

   Because anyone who performs an act of heroism acts altruistically rather than selfishly, a society that rewards heroism encourages

   This can't really match the structure of the original since there's only one premise here, whereas there were two premises in the original. This provides a conditional rule, but there's no second premise saying "Eddie performed an act of heroism" and then matching conclusion saying "Eddie acted altruistically rather than selfishly". Instead, it moves straight to a conclusion that is hypothetical in nature.

   3%
3. C

   Correct80% picked this

   In order to rescue a drowning child, Isabel jumped into a freezing river. Such acts of heroism performed to save the life of one

   Why this is right

   We have a Premise that provides a rule: Heroism to save life → enrich lives of all We have a Premise saying that someone triggered that rule: Isabel heroically saved someone's life. And we have a Conclusion saying the outcome is true: Isabel enriched lives of all.

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

   80%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match7% picked this

   Fire fighters are often expected to perform heroically under harsh conditions. But no one is ever required to act heroically. Hence, fire fighters are

   There are two premises here, but neither is a conditional rule. We're just being told two facts about fire fighters: - often expected to be heroic - not required to be heroic The conclusion validly pulls those two things together, but it's not the same as presenting a rule, saying that some entity triggered the rule, and then concluding that the entity therefore is the outcome of the rule.

   7%
5. E

   Weak Premise Match4% picked this

   Acts of extreme generosity are usually above and beyond the call of duty. Therefore, most acts of extreme generosity are heroic, since all actions

   There is a conditional Premise: above call of duty → heroic Is there a premise that someone went above and beyond the call of duty? No, there's a generic premise that "acts of extreme generosity are usually above and beyond the call of duty". This triggers the rule, and the conclusion validly derives that "acts of extreme generosity are usually heroic". We could pick this answer if we didn't have (C) as a superior match, since it involves a specific entity who triggered a rule, rather than a generalization about a certain type of action that triggers a rule.

   4%