The argument does which one of

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: misanalysis13% picked this

   Provides additional support for the original generalization in part by showing that the supposed force of the counterexample derives from

   The author thinks that absentee is a valid counterexample to the original "crudely stated" generalization. That's why he amends his rule in order to resolve the "impasse". He volunteered the counterexample so he would be accusing himself of misanalyzing his own rule.

   13%
2. B

   Out of Scope: dismisses1% picked this

   Dismisses the counterexample on the grounds that its force, compared to the weight of the

   The author takes the counterexample head-on; he doesn't dismiss it. He actually modifies the rule in order to be able to rule out such counterexamples.

   1%
3. C

   Bad 2nd Half9% picked this

   Concedes that the proposed counterexample is an exception to the generalization but maintains the generalization on the grounds

   The first part matches, but the author never maintains the original crudely stated version of the rule, by saying, "hey, every rule has an exception, amirite?"

   9%
4. D

   Correct57% picked this

   Narrows the scope of the generalization at issue in such a way that the putative counterexample

   Why this is right

   The author adds a qualifier to his original, crudely stated generalization. By doing so, he narrows the scope of the generalization. Originally, it applied to all words that end in -ee. Now, it applies only to those words that end in -ee that are also referring to one party in a two-party transaction. Absentee, the putative (i.e. supposed counterexample), is no longer relevant, since absentee does not refer to a two-party transaction.

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

   57%
5. E

   Out of Scope: spurious19% picked this

   Shows how replacing the notion of being affected in the specified way by an action with that of having someone’s action directed at oneself

   "Spurious" means fake, inauthentic, illogical. Spurious reasoning may sound true, but it is flawed. Spurious accusations are baseless, exaggerated claims. The author respects "absentee" as a counterexample; that's why he re-writes the rule in order to exclude absentee. He doesn't consider it a spurious counterexample to the original, crudely stated generalization. "Spurious" is the easiest way to get rid of this answer, since the first half might make your brain melt. I think it's actually nonsense, masquerading as a "I dunno; it sounds complicated, maybe I should pick it" trap answer. What is the difference between "being affected in a specified way by an action" and "having someone's action directed at oneself"? When those show up in the paragraph, they're functionally interchangeable. "Payee" = the specified action of paying, being done by person Y, is affecting person X. "Payee" = Y's action of paying is directed at X.

   19%