firstly WHAT is conclusion..



so assumption has to relate to interceptions and losses....

let us see the choices

a. Fumbles do not hurt a team's chances of winning a game.
we are looking for something related to assumptions and losses/win

b. A team's chances of winning a game are greatly reduced if it throws any interceptions during a game.
simply reiterates the para

c. A team that throws more interceptions than its opponent does and still wins the game must have superior players.
we are not talking of players

d. Interceptions do not result from a team's falling behind in the game.
Yes our answer... the assumption is that it is NOT the opposite . If a team losing makes more interception, the relation between wins and interception falls flat

e. Interceptions are harmful primarily because they make it easy for the other team to score points.
out of scope

D
_________________

CR Qs ..password to the test is JAG Educate... JAGEDUCATE.COM

Hi...

Many would not know what is fumble.
Yes, one alternate cause of losses but it does not tell us that the losses are because of interceptions.
So here the ASSUMPTION should have covered all areas/elements that could lead to loss not just one part of it.
May be a choice like - fumbles and all other major fouls and faults don't hamper the chances of winning.

Now why D is correct.
Here the ASSUMPTION is vice versa. What if the interception don't lead to losses but team losing/falling behind in an ongoing match starts doing more interceptions in frustration.
You would find some questions on the same logic.

Another example..
Gymnastics has all fit people doing it. So gymnastics leads to a person remaining fit.
BUT if it's other way that only fit people can do gymnastics.

Reasoning that could be again similar...
All Indians moving to US do well. So US contributes to their doing well.

But it may be that only talented people move to US
So it is not US but their talents

So here the ASSUMPTION would be that these people would not have done better had they not moved to US.
_________________

conclusion: interceptions contribute greatly to team losses.
This is a causal argument. We need to find a "defender assumption" that eliminates possible ideas which might weaken the argument.

a. Fumbles do not hurt a team's chances of winning a game. Irrelevent. The conclusion is about interceptions
b. A team's chances of winning a game are greatly reduced if it throws any interceptions during a game. Does not provide any new information
c. A team that throws more interceptions than its opponent does and still wins the game must have superior players. Irrelevent. We are not concerned about which team has superior players
d. Interceptions do not result from a team's falling behind in the game. Correct: A possible weakner (reversed causal relationship ) that interceptions result from a team's falling behind in the game
e. Interceptions are harmful primarily because they make it easy for the other team to score points.Irrelevent: we are not concerned about why interceptions are harmful
_________________

Echoing what Ian said above, this one's definitely too culturally biased toward fans of American football to be an official test question, but especially for those who follow football the lesson can be really useful here. The big issue is correlation vs. causation: the argument states that interceptions are highly correlated with losing, but that isn't the same as knowing that interceptions CAUSE the losing or are just associated with it in a different way.

If you know American football, the issue stands out - teams that are losing have to take bigger risks to try to catch up with limited time, and those risks lead to mistakes like interceptions (which is when a team's pass attempt is caught by the opposing team). So there's a very real chance that it's not the interceptions that CAUSED the losing; interceptions are something that happens to teams that are already losing, so they're correlated but not the cause.

A more universal business example would be "A report by Standard & Poors revealed that 82% of retailers that filed for bankruptcy over the last five years had discounted a majority of their inventory by more than half its retail price. Clearly these deep discounts are causing retailers to incur losses that lead to bankruptcy." Here are the discounts the CAUSE of bankruptcy? Or are they something that a desperate retailer does to liquidate inventory as part of a strategy to close failing stores or bring in necessary short term income or something else?

Choice (D) exposes that issue by bringing up the idea that the "bad thing" (interceptions in the question as written; deep discounts in my parallel example) could RESULT from the desperation associated with losing/going-bankrupt and not be the cause of it.
_________________