In Debbie’s magic act, a volunteer

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct66% picked this

   The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie did not always use the same method

   Why this is right

   When an answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can assess the idea that follows like we're doing Weaken. Could we object to this argument by saying that, "Debbie doesn't always use the same method to achieve her effect"? Yes. We could say, "Sure, Trial 1 showed no sleight of hand. That's because Debbie was using a trick deck to achieve the effect, since she knew you were videotaping her." And then the skeptic would say, "B-but, in trial 2, I supplied the deck, which obviously was not a trick deck." But since Debbie can achieve her effect more than one way, we can say, "Yes, during Trial 2 she used sleight of hand, since she knew she had to use your deck." And then for trial 3, we can say she used a trick deck or sleight of hand, rather than a planted volunteer. If Debbie has the flexibility to use sleight of hand or a trick deck or a planted volunteer, then she could have kept switching her method to elude the mode of detection the skeptic was using. For the skeptic to have really proven this conclusion, he would have needed to combine all his methods into one trial. "Debbie, we're videotaping you. I'm supplying the deck, and I'm going to be the audience member who picks the card." That would exclude all three methods simultaneously, which would allow the skeptic to derive his conclusion.

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

   66%
2. B

   Not an Objection5% picked this

   The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that sleight of hand could also be detected by some

   Since this begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it weakens to say, "Hey, author -- you can detect sleight of hand other ways than videotaping"? No, that doesn't weaken. As long as videotaping is a way to detect sleight of hand, then trial 1 showed that (at least during trial 1) Debbie wasn't using sleight of hand.

   5%
3. C

   Didn't Fail to Consider4% picked this

   The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie requires both sleight of hand and a trick deck

   Since this begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it weakens to say, "Hey, author -- Debbie's trick requires both sleight of hand and a trick deck"? Yes, that would weaken, because it would basically contradict the conclusion. However, it's not true to say that the skeptic failed to consider this possibility. After all, the skeptic devised trials to figure out whether sleight of hand or trick decks were involved. The skeptic can say, "I absolutely considered whether Debbie uses both. But ... I ruled out sleight of hand via trial 1 and ruled out trick deck via trial 2. So, I know that Debbie isn't using either of those methods, let alone both of them." For any Flaw answer to be correct, we have to be able to answer "yes" to both of these questions: 1. Is this answer descriptively accurate? 2. Does this answer make a good complaint about the logic? 99% of the time when we see fails to consider / ignores possibility, #1 is true, and so we're really just asking ourselves about #2 (would this be a good complaint about the logic). But occasionally we'll be getting rid of these answers because #1 is false, the author didn't fail to consider X. The author is trying to prove X is false.

   4%
4. D

   Not an Objection24% picked this

   The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie used something other than sleight of hand, a trick deck, or a planted

   Since this begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it weakens to say, "Hey, author -- maybe Debbie uses some method besides those three you mentioned"? No, that doesn't weaken. That totally agrees with the author. He thinks she uses none of those 3 listed methods; so he believes that she uses some other method.

   24%
5. E

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   The skeptic failed to consider the possibility that Debbie’s success in the three trials was something

   Since this begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it weakens to say, "Hey, author -- her success is not just a coincidence." No, that doesn't weaken. The skeptic doesn't think that Debbie's ability to pull off this effect each time is a coincidence. He understands she's doing a magic trick. He's trying to figure out her method and thinks he has ruled out three possibilities.

   2%