Hana said she was not

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection8% picked this

   disregards the possibility that a change of mind might be justified by a

   When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "would this hurt the argument, if true?" This answer choice seems to be objecting, "What if Hana changed her mind, in light of changing circumstances, and decided she would invite her brothers?" That wouldn't weaken. That would actually strengthen the author's conclusion that Hana's brothers were at the party.

   8%
2. B

   Bad Premise/Conclusion Match13% picked this

   treats the fact of someone’s presence at a given event as a guarantee that that person had a legitimate reason

   When a Flaw answer choice is structured treats X as a guarantee that Y we can ask ourselves, "does X match the evidence and Y match the conclusion? Were we told in the evidence of "the fact of someone's presence at a given event"? No. Instead, the conclusion is thinking that at least one brother was present at Hana's birthday event. But we were never told that as a factual premise. This answer also mismatches the conclusion. According to this answer choice, the argument was, "Since we know at least one of the brothers was the event, we can conclude that this brother had a legitimate reason to be there".

   13%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: Not Opinion vs. Fact2% picked this

   uses a term that is intrinsically evaluative as though that term

   This answer choice describes an author who failed to distinguish between evaluative Opinion and objective/descriptive Fact. There aren't actually any intrinsically evaluative terms in this paragraph. An intrinsically evaluate term would be like if I said, "Hana had a successful birthday party."

   2%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   fails to establish that something true of some people is true of

   Why this is right

   When a Flaw answer choice begins with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish we can ask ourselves, "was the author assuming this?" Was the author assuming "something true of some people is true of only those people". Ugh, yes, we can make this work with our prephrased Objection of, "What if one of Hana's friends bought her the recording? (That would explain how she got that gift without needing to implicate one of her brothers' being present at the party)." Our author, in thinking that it must have been one of Hana's brothers who is responsible for this gift, was assuming that only the brothers knew she wanted that recording, or only the brothers had planned to give her that recording. That's what this answer is getting at. We know that "planned to give Hana this recording" is something true of Hana's brothers. Since the author isn't even considering the possibility that other people also may have "planned to give Hana this recording", he is assuming that "planned to give Hana this recording" is true of only Hana's brothers. Negating this assumption would be saying, "Hana's brothers are not the only people for whom it was true to say they planned to give Hana that recording", and that negation would be a big objection, because it would suggest an alternate explanation the author has failed to consider.

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

   72%
5. E

   Not An Objection5% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that a person’s interest in one kind of thing is compatible with that person’s interest in

   When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "would this hurt the argument, if true?" Can we hurt the argument by saying that, "even though Hana is interested in this recording, she could also be interested in a different thing as well"? No. The author was never assuming that Hana was only interested in the recording, so it's not an objection to bring up the fact that she may have been interested in other stuff as well.

   5%