Q25 - Any popular television series that is groundbreaking

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Some popular TV shows are not groundbreaking.
Evidence: All popular TV shows that are groundbreaking are critically acclaimed, but some popular TV shows are not critically acclaimed.

Answer Anticipation:
Not all A's are B = Some A's are ~B
I always translate "not all" into "some aren't", because our brains are better at understanding the meaning of "Some" vs. "Not all".

This argument is airtight. It gives us a conditional premise, and then we use the contrapositive of that conditional on a 2nd premise in order to derive the conclusion.

Formally, we're looking for something like,
P1: All G's are CA. (contrapositive: if you're not CA, you're not G)
P2: Some X's are not CA.
Conc: Some X's are not G.

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The conclusion is conditional, so we don't need to investigate this one.

(B) This is a flawed argument, an illegal reversal.

(C) YES, this matches. "All unbiased have embarassing. Since some bios don't have embarrassing, some bios are not unbaised."

(D) The conclusion is too all-encompassing to match our "there's at least one exception" conclusion, so we don't need to investigate this one.

(E) This is a flawed argument, an illegal negation.

Takeaway/Pattern: Using the "Does the Conclusion Match in type/strength" shortcut, we can avoid needing to read (A) and (D). With the remaining three, we are given a conditional, and we need to make sure that the other premise tells us that sometimes the right side idea doesn't occur. (B) told us that sometimes the right side idea DOES occur. (E) told us that sometimes the LEFT SIDE idea doesn't occur.

#officialexplanation

[BenS423]

On A, what do you mean, "(A) The conclusion is conditional, so we don't need to investigate this one." ?