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
(A) 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
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer
(C) draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
(E) draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known
Doubt- Why is D correct and not A.
The argument concludes that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win on the basis of the premise that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing (computer analysis)
We need to find what is wrong with the argument.
A- 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
The premise is not that certain factor is sufficient for a result. The analysis did show that the team lost only when Jeniffer did not play. We cannot say that it is a fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result.
The premise is the computer analysis. The analysis showed that the team lost only when Jeniffer did not play. It then goes on to say that it may continue to repeat. It could have very well been a coincidence that the argument does not seek to explore. Hence D over A.
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide