Even in ancient times, specialized

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Sampling9% picked this

   taking the fact that something is true of one sample of a class of things as evidence that the same is true

   The author's evidence doesn't provide a sample of a class of things. It provides a bunch of conditional ideas about what specialized farms required and about how specialized farms were impossible in the Kadshim region.

   9%
2. B

   Correct69% picked this

   taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also

   Why this is right

   A necessary precondition of specialized farms is urban populations. Specialized farms require a large commercial market, and that only happens with an urban population. The author is pointing out that in the Kadshim region, there would have been a nonexistence of specialized farms. She then takes the nonexistence of specialized farms in the Kadshim region as evidence that urban population (a necessary precondition of specialized farms) wouldn't have been an option in this region. This is a fancy way of describing an illegal negation. Given A ? B, we can say that B is a necessary precondition for A. If an author reasoned, "Since Jerry isn't A, that must mean that Jerry isn't B", that would be an illegal negation. The author took the nonexistence of A as evidence that B was not true.

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

   69%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Equivocation3% picked this

   interpreting an ambiguous claim in one way in one part of the argument and in another way in

   The author's argument isn't flawed because it used the same term or concept to mean two different things.

   3%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw17% picked this

   supposing that because two things usually occur in conjunction with one another, one of them must be the

   Wrong Flaw: not Causal Bad Conclusion Match When an answer is structured like (assumes) that because X, Y then we can ask ourselves, "Does X match the Evidence? Does Y match the Conclusion?" Was the evidence here talking about two things that usually occur in conjunction with one another? We could stretch that. The author's evidence says that specialized farms usually (really: always) occur in conjunction with large commercial markets + urban populations. But then would the Conclusion match? Did the conclusion say that "specialized farms cause large commercial markets / urban populations"? No way.

   17%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular1% picked this

   drawing a conclusion that is simply a restatement of one of the premises on which

   The conclusion is that "the ruins are probably the remains of an uninhabited ceremonial structure". There definitely was not a premise that said "the ruins are from an old ceremonial structure".

   1%