It is obvious that one

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no one21% picked this

   No one wants his or her estate to go to someone he or she

   The author is definitely thinking that people would rather have their estate go to their beloved friends than to their distant relatives. But the author doesn't have to commit to this extreme claim that no one ever wants their estate to go to someone they haven't met. Some people may have outlived all their friends, so their best option is giving their estate to distant relatives. Some people may write a will that directs that their estate be given to a charity or foundation, in which case the money is being given to people the benefactor has not met.

   21%
2. B

   Too Strong: only2% picked this

   One’s estate should go only to a person who

   The concept of deserving is out of scope here. The author is just suggesting that people would rather have their estates end up with beloved friends than with distant relatives. But no one is saying either one of those parties deserve the estate more than the other. Also, this answer isn't even in Relative terms like the argument. If an answer said, "Beloved friends are more deserving of one's estate than are distant relatives", it would be pretty tempting. However, this answer is talking about an Absolute sense of are you / aren't you deserving, which comes out of nowhere.

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope: unjust4% picked this

   Distributions of estates under current inheritance laws

   The author's argument isn't that the laws ought to be changed; it's that people ought to have a will written. So she might be perfectly content with the justness of current inheritance laws.

   4%
4. D

   Correct62% picked this

   People are generally not indifferent about how their estates

   Why this is right

   This has the lovable quality of ruling out an idea with "not / no". If we negate it, does it turn into an objection? People are generally indifferent about how their estates are distributed. Sure that weakens. The only reason the author is insisting we should all have wills is because if we don't, the money will be distributed to X rather than Y. If we respond, "Cool, man. I don't care. I'm totally indifferent about how my estate gets distributed", then we are able to object, "See? I don't need to have a will." Our predicted assumption was that: "People want to avoid money going to their distant relatives when it could otherwise go their beloved friends". This answer is now just deriving something necessary from that claim: "People have preferences about where their money goes".

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

   62%
5. E

   Opposite: greater legal right11% picked this

   One’s beloved friends have a greater legal right to one’s estate than one’s

   The passage actually tells us that distant relatives, under current laws, have a greater legal right to our estate (if we don't have a will) than our beloved friends do. It's precisely because our beloved friends have less legal right to our estate (if we don't write a will) that the author thinks we should be writing a will.

   11%