The first bicycle, the Draisienne,

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: "never"10% picked this

   presumes, without giving justification, that fads are never indicative of

   The author is assuming that the brief fad that ensued in 1817 was not indicative of genuine acceptance. But it's too strong to say he's assuming that fads are never indicative of genuine acceptance. However, we should also be wary of this answer from a common sense point of view. By definition, using the term "fad" implies that something came and went. So it's probably a fair assumption to say that "fads ≠ genuine / long-term acceptance".

   10%
2. B

   Author Agrees9% picked this

   fails to recognize that the reappearance of bicycles in the 1860s may have indicated genuine

   The author is assuming that the reappearance in the 1860s did indicate genuine acceptance. That's his whole basis for concluding that values changed between 1817 and 1860.

   9%
3. C

   Not a Reasoning Problem1% picked this

   offers no support for the claim that the Draisienne was the

   We don't need the premises to be precisely defined, cited, measured, etc. We're looking at problems with the reasoning, which means that we're accepting the truth of the premises but analyzing why those true premises would still fail to prove the author's conclusion. The idea of objecting to reasoning is saying, "I can accept your premise but still not accept your conclusion, because [objection]". This answer is sneering, "Why should I accept your premise?"

   1%
4. D

   Question is Relevant2% picked this

   poses a question that has little relevance to the

   The author's conclusion is offering a potential explanation for why bikes disappeared from 1817 to 1860 (the values of society weren't ready for a bike in a 1817 but changed somewhere along the way to 1860). So the question is supremely relevant to the conclusion.

   2%
5. E

   Correct79% picked this

   ignores, without giving justification, alternative possible explanations of the initial failure

   Why this is right

   The author's conditional shows that one possible reason for new technology to not be accepted is that the new tech didn't cohere with the values of a society. But there could be lots of other reasons that a new technology isn't accepted: "people don't understand it, can't afford it, don't see how it would benefit them, fear its health implications, etc." The author overconfidently settles on one possible explanation, i.e. commits a Causal Flaw.

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

   79%