Candidate: The government spends

Answer choices

1. A

   Topic Trap12% picked this

   The government enforces the speed limit on freeways much more closely than on tollways. But many more people die each year in auto accidents

   Topic Trap: government / highway Bad Premise Match In this argument, we put more resources into Problem 1 than Problem 2. Problem 1 is worse than Problem 2. And the author concludes that we should divert funds away from Problem 1 and towards Problem 2. This would match if the original argument had said this: We spend $500 million more on highway than smoking. More people die from highway than from smoking. Thus, we should spend less on highway and more on smoking. We should have been very suspicious of this answer choice as soon as we saw they were re-using a similar topic like highways and governments.

   12%
2. B

   Correct49% picked this

   A certain professional musician spends several times as many hours practicing guitar as she spends practicing saxophone. But she is hired much more often

   Why this is right

   We put more resources into Thing 1 (guitar) than Thing 2 (saxophone). But Thing 2 seems like a bigger opportunity (more sax gigs). Thus, we should divert resources away from Thing 1 and towards Thing 2. This definitely takes some massaging in order to match it up with the original, but this would fit the original too: We put more resources into Thing 1 (highway) than Thing 2 (smoking). But Thing 2 seems like a bigger opportunity (more smoking deaths). Thus, we should divert resources away from Thing 1 and towards Thing 2. I feel good that we can make it structurally match, but I'm not sure what flaw they think we should be considering with both of these ideas. The conclusion is by no means something that follows logically, but is there some name for what's wrong with the argument? Is there a common objection? In both cases, the author is assuming that the extra resources would actually make a difference. - would spending more money on smoking do anything, or are smokers going to stubbornly continue either way? - would spending more practice time on sax actually do anything to book more gigs, or is she already good enough that she'll get the same number of gigs regardless of how much extra she practices? In both cases, the author is failing to consider how Thing 1 might get worse without the resources. - if we spend $500M less on highway, will we end up getting a lot more deaths from that? - if we practice less on guitar, will we end up getting fewer guitar gigs from that?

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

   49%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match Topic Trap: highways5% picked this

   Automobiles burn more gas per minute on highways than on residential streets. But they get fewer miles per gallon on residential streets. Therefore, gas

   We spend more resources (gas) on Thing 1 (highway driving) than on Thing 2 (residential driving). I guess we could construe the second premise as Thing 2 is the bigger opportunity, since it's saying "but fuel economy is worse on residential streets". But then the matching conclusion would be something like, "thus we should divert resources (gas) from highway and put it into residential driving." This conclusion is the opposite of that. And this conclusion is really kind of contradicting itself. If we drive more time on the highway, then we're not saving gas (since we burn more gas per minute on the highway). Of course if we interpret "drive less" as drive fewer miles, then the conclusion would be correct. But that means our logical problem with this argument is really about how to define "drive less". Defined as "less time", the conclusion is contradicted by Premise 1. Defined as "fewer miles", the conclusion is justified by Premise 2. We should, again, have been suspicious of this answer choice since it's recycling the topic of "highways".

   5%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match23% picked this

   The local swim team spends many more hours practicing the backstroke than it spends practicing the breaststroke. But the team’s lap times for the

   We put more resources into Thing 1 (backstroke) than Thing 2 (breaststroke). Looks okay. Thing 2 seems like a bigger opportunity? no, this says Thing 1 (backstroke) is a bigger opportunity, since our lap times for breaststroke are already better.

   23%
5. E

   Bad Premise Match10% picked this

   Banks have a higher profit margin on loans that have a high interest rate than on loans that have a low interest rate. But

   We don't really have a premise that sounds like "we currently spend more resources on Thing 1 than on Thing 2". This is really similar to choice (C). The two premises are sort of like, "in regards to this, Thing 1 is a bigger opportunity. in regards to that, Thing 2 is a bigger opportunity". This is saying, when it comes to profit margin, high rates are a bigger opportunity. when it come to size of loan, low rates are a bigger opportunity. The original argument didn't have this sort of tradeoff when it comes to opportunity. It was saying "more resource towards 1 than 2, but seemingly bigger opportunity for improvement with 2."

   10%