Letter to the editor: According

Answer choices

1. A

   Doesn't Criticize Editor Contradicted3% picked this

   criticizes the editor rather than the writers of

   The author criticizes the writers of the article, not the editor. She says, "After all, the writers of the article should not have asserted that the right to remain anonymous was trivial".

   3%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   diverts attention from the content of the article by focusing on

   Why this is right

   This is describing an Ad Hominem rebuttal in which an author fails to engage with the content (she never thinks through what effects it would have if we enacted this mandatory ID law) and instead focuses on the source of the content. The author's premise has nothing to do with the proposal. She is just complaining that the people who wrote the proposal acted in a way contrary to their statements. It would be like arguing, "According to Donald Trump, politicians should do their best to tell the truth at all times. This opinion is wrong. After all, Trump made more public lies than did any other modern President."

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

   76%
3. C

   Out of Scope: same error8% picked this

   commits the same error in reasoning that it accuses the writers

   The author is accusing the writers of committing the error of saying one thing and acting in a different way. The writers say that the right to remain anonymous is trivial, but in writing their article anonymously, they seem to be acting in a different way. This answer is saying that the author of this argument also says one thing but acts in a different way. Acts in a different way? We don't have any idea how this author acts. There's no apparent conflict between this author's ideas and actions.

   8%
4. D

   Out of Scope: attack integrity4% picked this

   attacks the integrity of the writers without knowing anything

   The author doesn't attack the writers' integrity. She just thinks that "given that the anonymous writers clearly care enough about their own right to remain anonymous, their opinion that we should all be required to carry and show ID cards is wrong." This answer is also implying that the author made a hasty judgment about someone without looking into their situation to learn more about them. But that sort of objection doesn't land here, since the author is attacking anonymous writers. This author isn't vulnerable to the criticism of "You should have tried to learn more about those writers" because how can you learn more about an anonymous source?

   4%
5. E

   Not the Best Objection8% picked this

   confuses two meanings of the term

   This answer describes one of the 10 famous flaws, Equivocation, in which an author uses the same word or concept in two different ways. Did the author use anonymous in two different ways? When the first sentence says, "According to your last edition's anonymous article", it's using anonymous to mean "unidentified author". In the last sentence when it says, "They shouldn't have asserted that the right to remain anonymous was trivial", it's referring to the idea that in a world where you have ID's and have to show them on demand, you're forced to identify yourself. You no longer have the right to be anonymous (unidentified). While that definitely uses anonymity in two different contexts (signing authorship on something you've written vs. being confronted by an authority demanding your ID), it's consistently using anonymous to mean "unidentified". To whatever extent it's using the word in two different ways, that should not be our #1 complaint. We should be primarily angry that this author rejected a proposal without telling us anything bad about the proposal whatsoever.

   8%