Q1: Philosopher: I have been told that most university

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Most university students in my experience DO have interest in philosophical issues
Evidence: At the philosophical talks I give on campuses, the students have deep interest in philosophical issues.

Answer Anticipation:
If this unrepresentative sample flaw doesn't jump out at you right away, then you hope to work your way there by framing your goal as, "GIVEN THAT his premise is true, HOW COULD his conclusion be wrong?"

Here that would sound like,
"GIVEN THAT the students at his talks seem interested in philosophical issues,
HOW COULD IT BE THAT most university students don't have interest?"

This might set you up to think, "Well, maybe the students at philosophy talks are the only ones interested, and the other students, i.e. most of the student body, don't really care about philosophy"

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) No, this describes Equivocation (one of the 10 famous flaws). The term "interest" is used consistently to mean "enthusiasm / intrigue for a topic".

(B) YES! The premise is about students at her talks. The conclusion is about most students. She is assuming that her sample (the students at her talks) are representative of a larger group (most students today). And we have reason to believe the attendees of a philosophy talk are a self-selecting and thus unrepresentative sample of the broader community.

(C) No, this describes an Inappropriate Appeal (one of the 10 famous flaws). The author is not arguing about the WORTH of the field of philosophy. We're debating the truth value of "DO most university students have an interest in philosophy", (not "SHOULD they have an interest")

(D) No, this describes Unproven vs. Untrue (one of the 10 famous flaws). This argument wasn't anything like that. Alternatively, when we see answer choices saying the author assumed "because ____ is true, it must be _____ is true", we should try to match the 'because' part to the author's evidence and the 'it must be' part to her conclusion. Neither part matches. The evidence nevver said there was ZERO interest in something. The conclusion doesn't speak about a current INCREASE of interest in philosophy.

(E) No, this describes Ad Hominem (one of the 10 famous flaws). The argument has nothing to do with whether Philosophy is good/bad … or worth something / worthless, as choice (C) was saying. The philosopher is only trying to prove a statistical claim, that most university students have interest in philosophical issues.

Takeaway/Pattern: Well, THANK YOU test 84 for starting us off with a slice of familiarity. These five answer choices were five of the 10 famous flaws. What a great way to settle in to a section. If you don't have the same sense of recognition / ease / familiarity with these famous flaws, invest some study time in learning them so that you too can move through this first question quickly and confidently.

#officialexplanation