#2 - Advertisement: Anyone who thinks moisturizers

[Jerrymakehabit]

Can someone please explain why A is not correct? It looks perfect to me based on the analysis below.

The premise presents about earth:
Not cracked regular infusions of moisture

The conclusion presents about face that "skin should be protected.. give it..."
regular infusions of moisture Not cracked

Thanks
Jerry

[Adam Tyson]

As I see it, Jerry, the problem with answer A is that is too focused on conditional reasoning, while the argument in the stimulus is a mix of a conditional premise and causal conclusion, coupled with a really lousy analogy (which stands out like a sore thumb). There is a conditional premise, which you diagrammed (if the earth isn't cracked, it must have gotten moisture; if no moisture, then cracked), but then the author shifts to a causal claim - "the ravages caused by lack of moisture." The author isn't saying that a cracked earth proves no moisture, so uncracked skin proves moisture (a mistaken negation of sorts). He's really saying there is a causal relationship between a lack of moisture and cracked skin, based on a causal relationship between drought and a cracked earth. Causal arguments aren't flawed because of conditional reasoning, so answer A is just focused on the wrong type of reasoning! Instead, go for the obvious answer - the analogy just plain stinks.

[Jerrymakehabit]

As I see it, Jerry, the problem with answer A is that is too focused on conditional reasoning, while the argument in the stimulus is a mix of a conditional premise and causal conclusion, coupled with a really lousy analogy (which stands out like a sore thumb). There is a conditional premise, which you diagrammed (if the earth isn't cracked, it must have gotten moisture; if no moisture, then cracked), but then the author shifts to a causal claim - "the ravages caused by lack of moisture." The author isn't saying that a cracked earth proves no moisture, so uncracked skin proves moisture (a mistaken negation of sorts). He's really saying there is a causal relationship between a lack of moisture and cracked skin, based on a causal relationship between drought and a cracked earth. Causal arguments aren't flawed because of conditional reasoning, so answer A is just focused on the wrong type of reasoning! Instead, go for the obvious answer - the analogy just plain stinks.

Thanks Adam! You are right "Causal arguments aren't flawed because of conditional reasoning" and this question is a total mix.