PrepTest 54, Section 2, Question 19
The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer's presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.
The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer's presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.
The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer's presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.
The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer's presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result
presumes, without providing justification, that a player's contribution to a team's win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer
draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case
presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known
0 Comments