#20 - Game show host: Humans are no better than apes at

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

Okay so I am not understanding this question at all. I narrowed my answer choices to B and E.

So this is a Flaw EXCEPT question, so were are looking an answer choice that is not a flaw in the argument.

My conclusion was that essentially chimps are better investors than humans.

So after reviewing B I can see why is the correct answer, because stock reports are not relevant.
But can someone explain why E is the correct answer choice.

Thanyou
Sarah

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for your question, it is a good one.

Answer choice B is a great example of something that happens fairly often in flaw questions: an answer choice can be true without describing an actual flaw in the argument. For instance, in this case, answer choice B is clearly true: no evidence was given that chimpanzees are capable of understanding stock reports or using reason to make investment decisions.

However, don't let the fact that the statement in B is true make you think that it describes a flaw in the argument; it doesn't. To illustrate, let's imagine that answer choice B said:

No evidence is offered that most chimpanzees are left-handed.

That is also, undoubtedly, true, but it doesn't really have any bearing on the conclusion, which is that humans do not attain a better return on their investment than apes do; it is therefore, like B, not a flaw in this argument.

I would encourage you to focus on the specific way the conclusion is worded by its author, rather than your own (or my own, or anyone's) paraphrase of the conclusion. That is, don't put it in your own words - keep it in the author's words. That helps me to make sure I am interpreting it in a very literal way, and it helps in situations like this by reminding me that whether or not a chimpanzee can read a stock report or make a reasoned decision does not necessarily have anything directly to do with whether their investments bring a better return than those made by five humans.

I hope that helps.

[mN2mmvf]

Hi,

How does (A) describe a flaw in the game show host's reasoning? No conclusion appears to me to be made about apes in general; rather, a conclusion is made about humans, in comparison to apes.

Thanks!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, MN2,

Good question! In fact, the conclusion does involve a bilateral comparison; to state that "humans are no better than apes at investing" does imply that "apes are at least as good as humans at investing." Thus, we indeed have a conclusion about apes at large drawn from information about a single chimp.

Does this make sense? Thanks!

[mN2mmvf]

Yes! Thank you.