The reasoning in the meteorologist’s

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match23% picked this

   rejects a partial explanation, not because it is incorrect, but only because it

   The author does reject an explanation, but the basis is because the author thinks it's dead wrong, not because it is "incomplete".

   23%
2. B

   Bad Argument Match13% picked this

   fails to distinguish phenomena that exist independently of a particular system from phenomena that exist only as

   I can't really tell what this answer is saying, but it doesn't resemble this argument or our pre-phrase enough to engage. We wanted something like, "Your objection was just citing a group of people that the other person already knew disagreed with her." We weren't objecting to the meteorologist's argument because it was sloppy science that failed to distinguish between luminosity, as a property that exists outside the system of Earth's climate vs. a property that only exists within Earth's climate.

   13%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match13% picked this

   calls into question the existence of a correlation when the only real issue is that of how

   The author doesn't discuss the correlation at all. The author is ruling out (a priori) the logical possibility that something like solar luminosity could determine land temperatures. He doesn't say "the correlation does not exist"; he's just suggesting that there must be some other explanation since it's not possible for luminosity by itself to control land temperature.

   13%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   dismisses a hypothesis on the grounds that it fails to deal with any matters

   The author does dismiss a hypothesis, but she does so on the grounds that any professional meteorologist would tell you that such a hypothesis is impossible, not because it's not a scientifically significant idea. To the contrary, it sounds like this author's mind would be blown with scientific significance if she found out the statistician were correct.

   2%
5. E

   Correct50% picked this

   appeals to the authoritativeness of an opinion without evaluating the merit of

   Why this is right

   The author does appeal to authority ("any professional meteorologist will tell ya ..."). The statistician had already acknowledged that this authority's opinion was different, so there was no value in bringing it up. Meanwhile, the author failed to respond to the statistician's evidence: luminosity and land temperatures are tightly correlated! That combo is what made the meteorologist's response so flawed: it didn't offer any other explanation for the correlation, and instead just reiterated "but these people don't think you're right!"

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

   50%