Economist: No economic system that

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   Not all mammals are without wings, because bats are mammals and

   We can tell from the fact that this conclusion is not conditional (not all A's are B) that this won't be our match.

   3%
2. B

   Correct42% picked this

   All of the rural districts are free of major air pollution problems because such problems occur only where there is a large concentration of

   Why this is right

   There are three conditionals (all, only where, no). The first claim is the conclusion, signified by the because that shows that the 2nd and 3rd claim are providing support. Do those two claims chain together? Yes. Rural → no large concentr. → no major air district of automobiles pollution problems Does the conclusion connect the 1st thing to the 3rd thing? Yup, it says Rural → no major air district pollution problems

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

   42%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match9% picked this

   All of the ungulates are herbivores, and most herbivores would not attack a human being. It follows that any animal that would attack a

   This does not have three conditionals (all, most, any). So we can throw it out. The two premises do not chain together, because we have no way to guarantee that ungulates would not attack a human being.

   9%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion Match19% picked this

   All rock stars who are famous have their own record companies, and all rock stars with their own record companies receive company profits over

   This does have three conditionals (all, all, necessary). The final claim is the conclusion, signified by this implies that. Do the two premises chain together? Sure. When it comes to rock stars, famous → have own record comp have own receive profits record comp → above royalties Okay, so the conclusion should be saying something like "any famous rock star receives company profits over and above regular royalties". But this conclusion is saying "any famous rock star receives large regular royalties". "Receive profits over and above regular royalties" is not the same as "receives large regular royalties". The phrase 'over and above' doesn't mean that they receive larger-than-average regular royalties. It's saying, "In addition to the regular royalties they receive (from radio play / streams) for being a recording artist, they are also getting money (like dividends) from being the business owner of a record company".

   19%
5. E

   Bad Evidence/Validity Match27% picked this

   Every mutual fund manager knows someone who trades on inside information, and no one who trades on inside information is unknown to every mutual

   This does have three conditionals (every, no, no). The final claim is the conclusion, signified by one must conclude that. Do the two premises chain together? Not exactly. The first conditional ends with "KNOWS someone who inside trades". The second conditional begins with "IS someone who inside trades". mutual → knows someone fund mgr who insider trades someone who known by 1+ insider trades → mutual fund mgr You could still make an inference by combining them, but it would be something like, "if you're a mutual fund manager, then you know someone who is known by at least one other mutual fund manager". Instead, it says "if you're a mutual fund manager then you're known by at least one person who trades on inside information".

   27%