Self-study
The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles (Jennifer’s team) will win. This is based on computer analysis showing that in every game that the team has lost, Jennifer was not playing.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Although the premises establish that in all prior games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose (this is the contrapositive of “Team lost only when J wasn’t playing”), that doesn’t imply that this relationship must continue to be true for future games. In other words, what’s true about the past doesn’t have to be true about the future.
There’s also an assumption that in the games that the team didn’t lose, the team actually won (as opposed to having the game end in a tie).
19.
The argument above is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
infers from the ████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ █ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██████
(A) doesn’t describe a flaw; it describes the contrapositive inference. Also, the premise didn’t establish that J’s presence “is” sufficient for not losing. It established that in PAST games, her presence WAS sufficient for the team to not lose. This doesn’t apply to the future.
b
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ █ ████████ ████████████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████
The author doesn’t assume anything about levels of contribution to the teams’ wins and losses. He simply relies on the fact that in past games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose. This isn’t an attempt to say that Jennifer was 50% responsible, or 80% responsible, etc.
c
draws conclusions about ████████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████
The author’s conclusion concerns whether Jennifer’s presence in a game will ensure that the team wins. The conclusion doesn’t assert anything about computer analyses in sports generally.
d
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████
The author assumes that the association between Jennifer’s presence and winning, which is something that has been true about the team’s past games, will continue to be true in the future.
e
draws a conclusion █████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ █ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ █████
There’s nothing flawed about believing analysis is valuable even if it provides facts already known. Maybe it helped make those facts easier to interpret, or sped up calculation. Also, the premises say the analysis “revealed” something, which means something not previously known.