Anatomical bilateral symmetry is

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match21% picked this

   Since it is Sawyer who is negotiating for the city government, it must be true that the city takes the matter seriously. After all,

   This provides a conditional premise, S wasn't available ? negotiations deferred So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: but the negotiations were not deferred Instead, the other premise said the opposite of the trigger: but S was available. We don't need any more reason to get rid of this one, but the Conclusion also happens to be bad, since it brings in a brand new concept (takes matter seriously) that was never even discussed in the premises.

   21%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   Clearly, no candidate is better qualified for the job than Trumbull. In fact, even to suggest that there might be a more highly qualified

   This only has one premise (the original argument had two), so it really doesn't even get off the ground.

   1%
3. C

   Correct63% picked this

   If Powell lacked superior negotiating skills, she would not have been appointed arbitrator in this case. As everyone knows, she is the appointed arbitrator,

   Why this is right

   This provides a conditional premise, P lacked great ? wouldn't have been negotiating skills appointed arbitrator So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: P was appointed arbitrator. It does. So now the conclusion should be saying the opposite of the trigger: P does have superior negotiating skills. It does.

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

   63%
4. D

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match9% picked this

   Since Varga was away on vacation at the time, it must have been Rivers who conducted the secret negotiations. Any other scenario makes little

   This provides a conditional premise, V is available ? R doesn't do negotiating So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: R does do negotiating Instead, that idea is found in the Conclusion. And the second premise says the opposite of the trigger: V was not available (he was on vacation)

   9%
5. E

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match7% picked this

   If Wong is appointed arbitrator, a decision will be reached promptly. Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator,

   This provides a conditional premise, W appointed arbitrator ? decision reached soon So the other premise should trigger the contrapositive, by saying the opposite of the outcome: but the decision will not be reached soon Instead, that idea shows up as the conclusion, and the other premise just affirms the trigger.

   7%