PT103 · S3 · Q10 Tires may be either underinflated

This answer refers to one of the other 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the evidence restates the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. These answers are almost always wrong. The author's premise does not require that under/over-inflating harms tire tread. This answer would refer to an argument like this: "Green is the best flavor of Skittles. After all, if everyone ranked their favorite Skittles, they would but green above the others." We wouldn't accept that premise. We'd say, hey that's not true. You're only thinking everyone would put green above the other colors because you're assuming that green is the best.

Any time a flaw answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows like a Weaken answer choice. Would it hurt the author if we said, "Yo, author --- some things are not, in principle susceptible to proof, but they're still false." Close! We'd love to object, "Some things that have not yet been proven are still true", because we're trying to argue that "even though no one has proven that over/under-inflation doesn't harm tread, it's still possibly true that it doesn't harm tread." But this is talking about something that isn't in principle susceptible to proof. Does that feel applicable to the question of whether over/under-inflation harms tread? Is that a question that isn't in principle susceptible to proof? No, that seems like a very real-world thing that could be measured and tested scientifically. So this potential objection doesn't seem applicable to the argument because we're only discussing a situation that is susceptible to proof.

The phrase fails to establish / fails to specify is akin to takes for granted / presumes. They all introduce Necessary Assumptions. If we argued, "That pie is an apple pie. Thus, Tracy would love it" We could say the argument is flawed because it (A) fails to specify whether Tracy loves apple pie or (A) takes for granted that Tracy loves apple pie Our author doesn't need to show how under/over-inflation harms tire tread. It would definitely strengthen his argument to do so, but he doesn't need to. We could say, "Yes, he did fail to specify how it would harm tread, but that's not why we're mad at the author. We're mad because he thinks that the fact that no has shown they don't harm tread proves that they do harm tread. That's the reasoning move, and we're supposed to be critiquing that move."

Flaw answers are always wrong when they're complaining that we lack a specific value, a specific measurement, a specific definition, or the specific names of people cited. We're here to complain about bad reasoning moves, not about missing details. Like (C), we would say, "This answer is true, but it's not the reason we should be mad at this reasoning".