I honestly cannot differentiate the answer choices (C) and (D) and figure out why one is 100 percent right and the other 100 percent wrong. I checked on the Manhattan forum, still don't get it!
First of all, the flaw is obvious enough.
Says, EI--->(probably given the 90%) consumes large amounts of coffee
Then, it says, Tom drinks large amounts of coffee ---> EI (extreme insomniac). So it is a reversal. I went to the answer choices looking for some sort of reversal / necessary or sufficient error. Didn't really see one, and basically tried to differentiate (c) from (d), and incorrectly picked (D).
I'll outline my logic below:
(A) Firstly, this didnt address the issue of suff/necessary or reversal, so I was already weary of it. I also thought that the argument did somewhat acknowledge that tom could be in that 10 percent because it uses language like "likely" and probably" allowing for what I beleive is sufficient wiggle room to eliminate this.
(B) This just seemed really out of scope. Wasn't about a big cause and effect relationship that I saw, at least not in the flaw that I recognized, so not recognizing some type of alternative cause was something I considered not important for this Q.
(C) I still don't really understand what its getting at, and neither did I when attempting this at first. I think it means that the Coffee---->insomnia group (which includes Tom) doesn't tell us how many people or what percentage of people are in the insomnia group, and therefore wouldn't be able to say its likely because we actually do not know how many people represent this group?
(D) Felt pretty confident here (wrongly). Inference about one specific individual (Tom) that describes only characteristics of class of individuals (insomniacs) ---> if someone can break down really clearly why this is wrong to me thatd be great.
(E) It never says that it ALWAYS DOES, just says most of the time. Too strong of language.
Would be great if someone can really breakdown (C) and (D).
