Flawed question?

Comments

• Louislepauvre Alum Member

  July 2019 750 karma

  The conclusion is: the best drivers drive best with a supervisor aboard and when they’re alone.

  Now, if it wasn’t true that drivers are pretty much all affected in about the same way when they’re being evaluated, the conclusion wouldn’t hold, because that enters the idea into the equation that some drivers get more nervous than others when being watched. The argument assumes that they’re all pretty much equally nervous.
• ilokmaca Free Trial Member

  July 2019 66 karma

  Thanks for the comment. Here is my thinking - say drivers are graded on a scale of 0-100 and there are 3 drivers. Driver A gets a 90 under normal conditions and drivers B and C both get 80s. Now, let's say Driver A drops 10 whopping points to an 80 in the presence of a supervisor while B and C only drop one measly point to 79s. So I would say the assumption didn't happen but the conclusion is still good.
• Louislepauvre Alum Member

  July 2019 750 karma

  If that happened, then the conclusion wouldn’t hold, because then the examination wouldn’t be a fair representation of their ability (as the argument claims it is). That’s why the assumption is necessary. If the necessary assumption fails (isn’t true), then the conclusion can’t be made.
• ilokmaca Free Trial Member

  July 2019 66 karma

  hmm...I'm still not getting it. Where does the argument claim that it is a fair representation? And why would this matter? It could be fair but that would not affect my example above. I know it's me but I just can't can't figure out where my thinking is going wrong.
• ilokmaca Free Trial Member

  July 2019 66 karma

  lightbulb finally came on, I think. The assumption being true is the only way the argument could be true in every case. I think what was throwing me was answer C - it's still a little unclear to me why that one is wrong.