It is common to respond to a person

Answer choices

1. A

   Word-Bait Bad Premise Match13% picked this

   Other countries argue that if we are serious about disarming we should go ahead and disarm to show our good intentions, but this is

   We should be a little nervous that the conclusion here uses identical wording (this is irrational). It's possible the correct answer will do that; but more often they use verbatim word repetition or similar topics in their trap answers. The matching version of this argument would say, "It is common for countries to respond to suggestions that they disarm by pointing out that the countries calling on them to disarm haven't themselves disarmed. This is irrational though, because whether or not a country should disarm has nothing to do with whether some other country disarms". The original argument thought it was bad that we turned the argument back on the source of the criticism. This argument is suggesting that we turn the argument back on the source.

   13%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   My neighbor urges me to exercise, but I see no good reason to do so; despite his strenuous exercise, he has failed to

   The conclusion here is, "I see no reason to exercise". We want a conclusion that is saying, "This response is inappropriate / irrational / beside the point".

   6%
3. C

   Opposite Advice3% picked this

   When one country accuses another country of violating human rights standards, the accused country can reduce the damage to its reputation by drawing attention

   Like (A), this argument is suggesting that we respond to criticism by critiquing the source. The original argument was saying the opposite. It was arguing that it's an irrational / irrelevant response to respond to criticism by critiquing the source.

   3%
4. D

   Correct73% picked this

   One should not dismiss the philosopher’s argument that matter does not exist by pointing out that the philosopher acts as though matter exists. People’s

   Why this is right

   This has a weak Conclusion match. We wanted something like, "This response is irrational / beside the point / irrelevant". Here we're getting, "One should not respond this way". Those are certainly somewhat different types of claims, but they are cousins in terms of the sentiment they convey. This is our best available match for the gist of the original argument: - when someone advises you X, you shouldn't turn the conversation back on their behavior. after all, whether or not you should accept their idea has nothing to do with their behavior This answer is saying that we should not respond to a philosopher's comments about matter by turning the discussion back to the philosopher's behavior. Focus on the philosopher's ideas/arguments, not the philosopher's actions/behavior. "People's actions have no effect on the strength of their arguments" is similar to saying "whether someone heeds their own advice is irrelevant to whether their advice should be heeded". This is like when we initially evaluated that the argument was saying we should "focus on the substance of the criticism, not the source of the criticism".

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

   73%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match Word-Bait: irrational5% picked this

   We should not be too severe in our condemnation of the salesperson; we have all lied at one point or another. It is irrational

   This conclusion is saying, "we shouldn't be too severe in condemnation". That's miles away from, "We shouldn't respond by turning the conversation back to the other person's actions". And the evidence isn't saying, "after all, the other person's actions are irrelevant to whether their ideas have merit". It's saying, "we shouldn't condemn people too hard for stuff we all do".

   5%