Logician: I have studied and

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   ignores the fact that our conception of physical laws undergoes

   fails to consider / ignores possibility = the answer choice is offering a supposed Objection. We wouldn't be objecting to his conclusion by saying, "Oh, author, you're forgetting that our concept of physics (i.e. Newton's, then Einstein's ... ) is always changing". Does that attack the conclusion and make it seem like "a logician violating the laws of logic is not like a physicist violating the laws of physics"? Not in any obvious way. The author is just comparing them on the level of, "in both cases, a specialist is breaking the laws of her field". It doesn't seem to matter to him whether those laws are permanent or undergoing constant change.

   2%
2. B

   Not Assumed1% picked this

   presents no evidence that physics is as difficult to master

   "fails to establish / presents no evidence that" are less typical forms of answer choices describing supposed Assumptions. (the famous forms of Assumption answers are "presumes / takes for granted") We'd ask ourselves, "Did the author need to assume that physics is as difficult to master as logic?" No, the two fields don't need to be identical on that level. The author is only needing to assume that "a specialist breaking a law in logic is similar to a specialist breaking a law in physics".

   1%
3. C

   Not an Objection14% picked this

   fails to rule out the possibility that some physicist could circumvent the laws of physics

   fails to consider / overlooks possibility = the answer choice is offering a supposed Objection. We wouldn't be objecting to his conclusion by saying, "Oh, author, you're forgetting that it is possible for some physicist to circumvent the laws of physics in everyday life." I mean, yes, that would hurt his conclusion, but we would sound like the craziest lawyer in the courthouse. You can't violate the laws of physics. They are the physical laws of the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc. What we could say is that the author fails to rule out the possibility that some logician could circumvent the laws of logic in everyday life. That's our objection.

   14%
4. D

   Correct82% picked this

   treats two kinds of things that differ in important respects as if they

   Why this is right

   This is complaining about the unfair comparison. Violating logic differs in an important respect from violating physics, in that the former is possible and the latter is impossible.

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

   82%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   has a conclusion that contradicts what is asserted in

   This refers to the famous Self-Contradiction flaw, which will be a wrong answer choice 99% of the time we see it. If the conclusion were contradicting what was asserted in the premise, then the second sentence would have said something like, So, I have barely even looked at the laws of logic.

   2%