Self-paced
Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold. ███ ███████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ █ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ █ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████
Argument Breakdown
The skeptical cold sufferer concludes that a new herbal mixture can't be an effective remedy for the common cold. Why not? Because most people with a cold want to recover quickly. For this reason, the sufferer argues, if the remedy were effective, then most people with colds would be using it. However, many people have colds but don’t use the remedy.
Effectively, the cold sufferer is saying that the predicted results that one would expect to see if the remedy were effective are not, in fact, happening. And since the predicted results aren't occurring, the cold sufferer concludes that the remedy isn't actually effective.
This also isn't a perfect argument—it requires some assumptions to make sense. For one, the cold sufferer has to assume that there aren't other reasons not to use this remedy, unrelated to its effectiveness. If it were effective but had very severe side effects, for example, the conclusion wouldn't follow.
21.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
finding a claim ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████████████ ████ ███ █████
The cold sufferer addresses a claim: the claim that the remedy is effective. And the cold sufferer's grounds are that if the remedy were effective, one would expect to see certain consequences: everyone with a cold would use it. However, those consequences are false, leading the cold sufferer to conclude that the initial claim is false and the remedy is ineffective.
b
accepting a claim ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
The cold sufferer doesn't appeal to public opinion—there's no discussion of whether most people think the remedy is effective, or anything along those lines. The cold sufferer does discuss whether people actually use the remedy, but not for the purpose of relying on their opinions. Instead, the cold sufferer uses that to show that an expected result of the remedy's effectiveness is not the case.
c
showing that conditions █████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ███ ███
The cold sufferer does exactly the opposite of this, instead showing that a condition presented as necessary if the remedy were effective is not met. The cold sufferer says that the remedy were effective (sufficient), then people would be using it (necessary). But people aren't using the remedy.
d
basing a generalization ██ █ ██████████████ █████ ██ █████████
The cold sufferer does make some generalizations: "most people" want to get over colds quickly, and "many people" with colds don't use the remedy. However, there's no discussion of individual cases that are taken as representative to establish either generalization.
e
showing that a ███████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █ ███████ ██████ █████ ████████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ █████████
The cold sufferer concludes that the remedy, which is claimed to cure colds, doesn't actually have that effect. But the cold sufferer never claims or implies that the remedy would make it harder to cure a cold.