Ms. Smith: I am upset

Answer choices

1. A

   No Generalization5% picked this

   It makes a generalization about all the children in the class which is not justified

   The principal goes straight into an analogy. He doesn't make any general statement about all the children in the class.

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong: as much inconvenience8% picked this

   It suggests that throwing raisins in the cafeteria produces as much inconvenience as does being caught

   The principal is claiming that the two situations are analogous in the sense that people who weren't involved in the disruption are nonetheless forced to suffer consequences. He never suggests that the fallout from some kids throwing raisins is equivalently inconvenient to being caught in a traffic jam.

   8%
3. C

   Correct82% picked this

   It does not acknowledge the fact that a traffic jam following an accident is unavoidable while the

   Why this is right

   This speaks to the Meaningful Difference we were looking for. It shows why his analogy is weak. When there's an accident, and the traffic lanes leading up to the accident get clogged with traffic, then the cars in traffic get "punished" even though they had nothing to do with the accident. But that's an unavoidable part of the physics of highway driving. When some of the highway is obstructed, the flow of traffic has to compress into fewer lanes, creating congestion. "Losing two days recess" was not an unavoidable part of dealing with the kids who threw raisins. The principal was just lazy / sloppy / over-aggressive in terms of deciding to apply that punishment to all. In other words, the crucial difference is that in a traffic jam you have no choice but to suffer the traffic, whereas the principal had a choice about whether the innocent kids needed to suffer.

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

   82%
4. D

   Not Assumed: son is guilty4% picked this

   It assumes that Ms. Smith’s son is guilty when there is evidence to the contrary which

   The principal never assumes that Ms. Smith's son is guilty. He is fully acknowledging that some kids who are getting punished had nothing to do with the raisin throwing. That's why his analogy uses wording like, "People who aren't involved in the accident (just as your son was not involved in the raisin throwing) nevertheless have to suffer."

   4%
5. E

   No Facts About Incident2% picked this

   It attempts to confuse the point at issue by introducing irrelevant facts

   The principal goes straight into an analogy. He doesn't introduce any facts about the incident.

   2%