Ms. Smith: I am upset

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: many3% picked this

   many children were throwing raisins in

   "Many" is not an inherently strong word. It doesn't have a precise minimum, but something like "at least 5" is a working definition. If you only had 1 or 2 beers in the fridge, it wouldn't be appropriate to say "There are many beers in the fridge". Meanwhile, it would still be fine to say, "There is some beer in the fridge", because some means 'at least one'. It seems like the principal would accept Ms. Smith's statement that "some children were throwing raisins", but we have no reason to think the principal is upgrading that to many children were throwing raisins.

   3%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   Ms. Smith’s son might not have thrown raisins in

   Why this is right

   This is safely worded (might) and is spelling out the way the analogy was meant to apply to the cafeteria situation. Since the principal is likening the son's situation to someone who "wasn't involved in the accident" but has to suffer anyway, he is saying that Ms. Smith's son "wasn't involved in the raisin throwing, but has to suffer the lost recess consequence anyway".

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

   85%
3. C

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   after an accident the resulting traffic jams are generally caused by

   Out of Scope: police activity Too Strong: generally We have no idea whether the principal thinks that more than 50% of the resulting traffic jams are caused by police activity. Maybe he thinks that most of the traffic jams are caused by tow truck activity, or by people involved in the accident failing to move their cars to the shoulder, or by people driving in the opposite direction rubber-necking.

   1%
4. D

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   Ms. Smith’s son knows who it was that threw raisins in

   Out of Scope: knew who it was We could infer this from Ms. Smith's statements, since she said that "it was clear to everyone just who the culprits were", but nothing the principal says touches on this subject. In the analogy, there isn't any part where the principal is like, "Even though you know which car caused the accident, you still have to suffer for it".

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope: deter9% picked this

   losing two days of recess will deter

   Nothing in the principal's analogy speaks to deterring future car accidents. In fact, this answer speaks to how the principal's analogy doesn't apply to the situation: In a car accident, it's potentially an accident, no one is at fault, and the reason everyone in the traffic jam has to suffer is because there isn't any other option. In the cafeteria incident, it wasn't accidental, specific people are at fault, and there are other options of dealing with the cleanup/aftermath that don't involve everyone suffering.

   9%