Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: auto drivers3% picked this

   takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from

   This argument is only about a law about pedestrians. The author has made no assumptions about drivers.

   3%
2. B

   Not Equivocation1% picked this

   uses the word “law” in one sense in the premises and in another sense

   This answer describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Equivocation, in which a key term or concept is used in two completely different ways. This answer is almost never correct, and we should only pick it if we feel we can supply two very different definitions for the different instances of that word/concept. But here, the term "law" is consistently used to mean an enforceable statute written by a legislative body.

   1%
3. C

   Not an Objection20% picked this

   ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the

   This answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, so we check to see whether the idea that follows would Weaken or sound like an objection. Can we object to this author and say, "Hey, author. Even if a law did deter the kind of behavior it prohibits, it could still fail to serve a useful purpose." Nope that doesn't weaken. That actually strengthens, because the conclusion is that this law fails to serve a useful purpose. If we expand the number of cases in which laws fail to serve a useful purpose, we're giving this author's conclusion a better chance of being true.

   20%
4. D

   Correct75% picked this

   fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross

   Why this is right

   This answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, so we check to see whether the idea that follows would Weaken or sound like an objection. Can we object to this author and say, "Hey, author. This law successfully dissuades people who only-sometimes cross against red lights." Yes, that's a big objection. That would allow us to say, "So this law does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits, at least somewhat. So this law may actually serve a useful purpose!" Again, in terms of reasoning archetypes, this author was committing a False Choice, an imagined binary, between people who always violate the rule and never violate the rule. She failed to consider another segment of the population. She failed to consider the middle ground between those two extremes.

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

   75%
5. E

   Not an Assumption1% picked this

   provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing

   This answer begins with takes for granted / fails to establish / provides no evidence that, so we check to see whether the idea that follows was something the author needed to assume. Did this author need to assume that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights? No, because she's not trying to justify the value of this law. The people who wrote the law forbidding crossing against red lights are clearly assuming that crossing against red is worse than crossing on green. But this author is arguing that the law serves no useful purpose, so there's no reason she needs to agree that it's worse to cross on red.

   1%