Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection28% picked this

   is based in part on

   "Hearsay" is evidence you heard from some third party. It's true that this argument involves a premise that says, "I overheard a colleague of hers say ... X". But there are two issues with picking this answer: 1. It's not inherently flawed to base an argument in part on hearsay. If you have a responsible conclusion like, "So assuming what the colleague said is true, then ", then you can use hearsay as part of your argument. It's flawed when people treat hearsay as fact, but this argument never does that, leading into #2. 2. The author isn't leaning on what he overhead as evidence; he's not treating it as true. He isn't saying, "Chan will be gone next year on business trips, working harder than ever." He is entertaining the idea that the colleague might not be telling the truth. There's nothing wrong with arguing like this: "Ms. C said X. Her colleague said Y. X and Y contradict. Thus, at least one of them is not telling the truth."

   28%
2. B

   Not Ad Hominem2% picked this

   criticizes Ms. Chan rather than the claims

   The author never criticizes Ms. Chan, so this answer is just descriptively false. This answer sounds like the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which someone rebuts an argument by talking about the source (usually pointing out an ulterior motive or conflicting past behavior) rather than addressing the ideas.

   2%
3. C

   Correct61% picked this

   draws a conclusion based on equivocal

   Why this is right

   The author is equivocating on the meaning of "retiring / retirement". Ms. Chan used it as a verb that means, "I'm leaving a job I've been at for a long time". Mr. Nance starts talking about "retirement" in a context that means "done with working for the rest of my life". Pretty soon (or recently, depending on when you read this) Lebron James will retire from the NBA. That doesn't mean he's entering retirement. He's probably still going to travel on business trips and work harder than ever. The author's argument is predicated on the idea that "if she says she's retiring, but her colleague says she's doing stuff that doesn't sound like retirement, than at least one of them is wrong." But retiring without being in retirement is entirely possible. The author is equating two different meanings of "retiring" in order to pretend like there's some contradiction here.

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

   61%
4. D

   Not an Objection8% picked this

   fails to consider that Ms. Chan’s colleague may have been deceived

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we say, "Hey, author -- Ms. Chan's colleague may have been deceived by her"? No that wouldn't weaken. If the colleague has been deceived, then the colleague is passing on info that isn't true. Hence, the conclusion is correct to think that "at least one of these people is not telling the truth". Similarly, if Ms. Chan deceived the colleague by not telling the truth, then the conclusion would again be correct.

   8%
5. E

   Never a Flaw1% picked this

   fails to infer that Ms. Chan must be a person of superior character, given her

   There's no such thing as fails to infer. There's no conclusion that an author is supposed to make, so we can't ever criticize them for failing to make a certain conclusion. We only criticize them based on the conclusion they do make, unless it is fully proven by the evidence presented.

   1%