Many people change their wills

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct60% picked this

   treats a partial solution to the stated problem as though it were

   Why this is right

   The idea to date the wills and explain which version of the will this one is superseding solves one of the two problems. When an executor finds multiple undated wills, then they will ... 1. not know which of the ones they're looking at is the most recent 2. not know whether the most recent one written is even in their possession The author's solution to date the wills will certainly take care of #1. The executor will be able to tell which of the wills in her possession is the most recent one; but she still won't have any idea if there is a more recent one not in her possession. That more recent will would tell her that it supersedes the one she's currently holding, but she'll never know that unless she finds that more recent will, and there's no way for her to know whether she should be looking for a more recent will. So since the author's recommendation doesn't take care of #2, we can say that the author's "there will not be a problem to begin with" is acting like solving #1 also solves #2.

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

   60%
2. B

   Out of Scope: adverse effects17% picked this

   fails to distinguish between prevention of a problem and successful containment of the adverse effects that

   The argument was never talking about the adverse effects that might transpire if the executor mistakenly thinks that the March 1st will is the most recent one. We can't criticize the argument by saying that the author's suggestion to date every will and mention which will it supersedes in order to solve the executor's problem is failing to distinguish between solving the problem and containing the adverse effects of the problem. If the author's suggestion successfully solved the executor's problem, then there would be no adverse effects. We're mad at the author because his suggestion doesn't really solve the problem.

   17%
3. C

   Out of Scope6% picked this

   proposes a solution to the stated problem that does not actually solve the problem but merely makes someone else

   Out of Scope: makes someone else responsible It's true that the author "proposes a solution to the stated problem that does not actually solve the problem". But it doesn't make any sense to say that the author's proposed solution makes someone else responsible for solving the problem. The author's proposed solution is for people to date their will and mention the previous version that's being overwritten. But it's still the executor of the will who is responsible for solving the problem, upon X's death, of which of X's wills is the most recent.

   6%
4. D

   Not Our Objection8% picked this

   claims that a certain action would be a change for the better without explicitly considering what negative consequences

   The author does claim that this would be a change for the better ("there wouldn't be a problem to begin with"). By saying "there's no problem to begin with" the author might be fairly said to be explicitly considering negative consequences. He's saying, "There ARE no negative consequences. There wouldn't be a problem to begin with." But someone could probably say, "Yes, but the author doesn't explicitly consider what negative consequences there might be in dating every will and saying which will it supersedes." That's true, but that's not a persuasive objection, not a reason we would find fault with the author's logic. Do we really think there's a significant downside to adding a date to a will? Your pen runs out of ink sooner? You waste 1 second you could have been doing something else?

   8%
5. E

   Out of Scope: unavailable information9% picked this

   proposes that a certain action be based on information that would be unavailable at the time

   The author proposes the action of dating their will (people would have the information of 'today's date' available at that time) and stating which will it supersedes. People theoretically always have a copy of their will, so if you write a new will to supersede the currently binding one, then you should be able to look at the currently binding one to acquire any information you need to notate on the new will that it will supersede this one. It seems like both actions the author is recommending that people take would require information they have access to.

   9%