Q16 - Every new play that runs

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Argument:

3 + ---> CSS or CRS
CRSlast year --> CSS
-------------------------
3+ last year --> CSS

(A) Everything was perfect up until the conclusion (most doesn't preclude the possibility of all). The conclusion is just a premise booster.

NR ---(most)---> GP or GL
GL ---(most)----> GP
--------------------------------
GL --> GS


(B) Premise mismatch. They use "and" compound conditional statements. Further the two elements in the necessary condition aren't used to form a separate conditional statement.

BS ---> WR
BS ---> CBP

WR and CBP
---------------------
BS


(C) Perfect match.
2S ---> SD or SS
SS --> SD
---------------------
2S ---> SD


(D) Premise mismatch. The necessary condition in the first premise includes a not both relationship, the original argument doesn't. I stopped reading after that.


(E) Premise mismatch. Uses an "AND" compound conditional statement instead of or. The elements in the necessary condition of the premise are not used to form their own conditional statement.

CSW --> R
CSW --> BCA
~ BCA
-----------------
~CSW

This would be better if it said:

CSW --> R and BCA
BCA ---> R

--------------------

CSW --->R

[maryadkins]

Question Type:
Organization/Structure

Answer choice analysis:
Premises: 3+ months --> Com Suc or Crit Suc.
Crit Suc --> Com Suc.
Conclusion: 3+months --> Com Suc.
This is a good argument!

A) "Most" is a problem since we're looking for a match. Moreover, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

B) Is well-written AND contains beautiful photos? We're looking for either/or.

C) Looks good. Student --> D or S. S --> D. Therefore: Student --> D.

D) But not both? No.

E) There is no either/or.