Government official: Clearly, censorship exists

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Validity Match7% picked this

   All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust; so if a just action causes harm to others,

   This argues from "all unnecessary-harm actions are unjust" — a "necessary cause" claim about unjust acts. It then reasons that if a just action causes harm, the harm must be necessary. That's contraposition (just → not unnecessary-harm), not denial of the antecedent. Different flaw, different shape.

   7%
2. B

   Bad Validity Match4% picked this

   Since there is more to good manners than simply using polite forms of address, it is not possible to say on first meeting a

   This argues from "good manners are more than just polite forms" to "you can't tell on first meeting." That's a different structure entirely — a claim about complexity producing an evidentiary limitation. No sufficient-condition-denying-the-antecedent move.

   4%
3. C

   Bad Validity Match4% picked this

   Acrophobia, usually defined as a morbid fear of heights, can also mean a morbid fear of sharp objects. Since both fears have the same

   This argues from shared name to shared origin — that's an etymological/equivocation flaw, not a denial-of-antecedent flaw. Different structure.

   4%
4. D

   Correct69% picked this

   There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person. Thus an

   Why this is right

   Same flawed pattern. The first sentence states a sufficient condition for heroism: if the doer risks his/her own life to benefit another, the deed is heroic. The argument then concludes that an action endangering only the doer's reputation is not heroic — denying the antecedent (no life risk → no heroism). Just like the original, it treats sufficient conditions as if they were the only conditions for the concept. Same shape, same flaw.

   Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   69%
5. E

   Bad Validity Match16% picked this

   Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder. Thus no object can be

   This argues that since beauty perception varies, no object is beautiful. That's a generalization-from-relativity flaw, not a denial-of-antecedent flaw. Different structure.

   16%