In a highly publicized kidnapping

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Sampling1% picked this

   generalizes from an atypical

   This refers to another of the ten famous flaws, Sampling, in which the argument is based on a small set of data points, which the author then assumes is representative of some larger group in her conclusion. This citizen's argument doesn't rely on any sample of data points, nor is their conclusion a generalization.

   1%
2. B

   Correct63% picked this

   trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term

   Why this is right

   This is pointing out the Equivocation flaw. The first usage of public interest in the citizen's argument refers to curiosity / intrigue / hunger-for-drama. The second usage of public interest refers to the goal of conducting a fair trial, free of distractions.

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

   63%
3. C

   Doesn't Overlook19% picked this

   overlooks the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to

   Given that the citizen is using the plural pronoun "they", he doesn't seem to be directly accusing the singular judge of hypocrisy. He seems to be railing against the law enforcement community more broadly. The initial "they" who pleaded with the public for help in finding the victim was presumably people from the police or other investigative bodies. The "they" who won't let the public attend the trial presumably refers to people at the courthouse, including the judge. We can also say that even if we thought this were some sort of objection, it wouldn't be why this argument is most vulnerable to criticism. We're supposed to be telling this author, "They didn't contradict themselves -- those are two completely different meanings to the term public interest", not saying, "They didn't contradict themselves. One person pleaded for help. Another denied you admission. It wasn't the same entity, so no entity actually contradicted itself."

   19%
4. D

   Not Inappropriate Appeal to Emotion11% picked this

   attempts to support its conclusion by making

   This refers to another of the ten famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeals (to Emotion / to Dubious Expert), in which the argument either relies on emotions/fear rather than logic or when the argument relies on the testimony of someone who hasn't been established to be a qualified expert in the field under discussion. There are no sensationalistic appeals in the evidence. The evidence says: - they pleaded with the public for help - they aroused the public's interest - they claimed that allowing us to attend would not serve the public interest

   11%
5. E

   Too Strong: obviously more important6% picked this

   presumes that the public’s right to know is obviously more important than the defendant’s right

   Technically the author is only arguing that the two actions contradict each other. The author isn't saying that one of the actions is more correct than the other. This answer makes it seem like the conclusion was, "Thus, the judge should allow the public to attend." If we negated this supposed assumption and said, "nah, the public's right to know is only equally important to the defendant's right to a fair trial", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. The author could still argue that the two actions were contradicting each other.

   6%