Lawyer: The defendant wanted to

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Flawed3% picked this

   Alice asked her sister to lie in court. Unbeknownst to Alice’s sister, lying in court is against the law. So what Alice asked

   Since lying in court is illegal, and Alice asked her sister to lie in court, we can absolutely conclude that what Alice asked her sister to do was illegal. (We wouldn't be able to prove that Alice intended to ask her sister to do something illegal, because Alice may not have known it was illegal, but the conclusion as written is valid).

   3%
2. B

   Correct64% picked this

   Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie. Unbeknownst to Bruce, the mincemeat pie was poisonous. So Bruce

   Why this is right

   This mostly gets at the Self-Contradiction part of the original. The argument establishes that Bruce did not know that the thing we wanted to eat was poisonous, but then it goes right on and acts like he intended to do the thing he was oblivious of. Just like in the original argument --- it establishes that the defendant did not know that the action of clearing the snow would cause a subsequent injury to the plaintiff, but then it goes right on and acts like he intended to injure the plaintiff.

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

   64%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match18% picked this

   Cheryl denigrated the wine. Cheryl’s sister had picked out the wine. So though she may not have realized it,

   The original flaw revolves around the idea of claiming that someone intended to do X, even though we know they had no idea that what they were doing would lead to X. There's no way to judge Cheryl's intent here. It says "she may not have realized that she was indirectly insulting her sister" but she may have. We would need to know that Cheryl had no idea who picked out the wine, and then we'd need to conclude something like "Cheryl intended to indirectly insult her sister".

   18%
4. D

   Barely/Differently Flawed1% picked this

   Deon had lunch with Ms. Osgood. Unbeknownst to Deon, Ms. Osgood is generally thought to be an industrial spy. So Deon had

   Since Ms. Osgood is thought to be an industrial spy, and Deon had lunch with her, we could validly conclude that Deon had lunch with an industrial spy. The only flaw here is that Ms. Osgood isn't clearly an industrial spy, she's just "generally thought to be" an industrial spy. But that's a different flaw. This argument is assuming that "something generally thought to be true = actually true". The original argument was assuming that "someone who was oblivious to the fact that their action would lead to X = someone who was intending to do X".

   1%
5. E

   Not Flawed13% picked this

   Edwina bought a car from Mr. Yancy, then resold it. Unbeknownst to Edwina, Mr. Yancy had stolen the car. So

   Since Mr. Yancy had stolen the car he sold to Edwina, and since Edwina later resold that car, we can validly conclude that Edwina sold a stolen car. If an argument is valid on Parallel Flaw, it can't possibly be the correct answer.

   13%