Catmull: Although historians consider themselves

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular4% picked this

   draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support

   The conclusion here is that "historians never determine what happened; they just invest stories". Was there a premise that said that? No, the premise said "historians never arrive at the same conclusion". That doesn't mean the same thing.

   4%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   concludes, solely on the basis of the claim that different people have reached different conclusions about a topic, that none

   Why this is right

   If a flaw answer is structured like concludes, solely on the basis of Y, that X then we know we need to ask ourselves, "Does X match the conclusion? Does Y match the evidence?" Was the conclusion saying / thinking that "none of these conclusions is true"? Sure, it's saying none of the conclusions arrived at by historians are a determination of what actually happened. Was the premise saying that "different people have reached different conclusions about a topic"? Sure, it said that different historians never arrive at the same conclusions. So the parts match. Does this seem like a logic problem? Is it bad to assume that if people give us different answers, then all of them are wrong? Sure, that's bad. It's impossible for all of them to be correct, but it's possible for one of them to be correct.

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

   85%
3. C

   Too Strong: no value whatsoever4% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that unless historians’ conclusions are objectively true, they have

   Whenever we see Necessary Assumption wording start off a Flaw answer choice (i.e. presumes / takes for granted / fails to establish), we should be wary of strong language, just as we are on Necessary Assumption questions. Did the author need to assume that historians conclusions have no value whatsoever? No, the author never spoke to the value or lack of value at all. If anything, the author contradicts this answer by suggesting that historians' conclusions have some value as interesting fictional stories.

   4%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Internal Contradiction2% picked this

   bases its conclusion on premises that contradict

   Just like Circular Reasoning in (A), this names one of the ten famous flaws that is almost always wrong (Circular, Self-Contradiction, Equivocating some "term"). There is only one premise, so it's impossible for the author to have had premises that contradict each other.

   2%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient5% picked this

   mistakes a necessary condition for the objective truth of historians’ conclusions for a sufficient condition for the objective

   Whenever we see this famous flaw show up in an answer choice, we should ask ourselves whether there was any conditional logic premise. If not, get rid of the answer. Here, the only premise was "different historians never arrive at the same conclusions about specific events of the past". The word never could be turned into something conditional. Okay, let's look deeper. Did the argument present something that is required for the objective truth of the historians' conclusions? No, there's nothing in the argument that says, "in order for the conclusions to be objectively true, it must be that X". Furthermore, this answer choice is saying that author took something required for conclusions to be objectively true and then argued like this, "Since X is the case, we can conclude that the historians' conclusions are objectively true". (This was treating X as a sufficient condition) That doesn't match at all, since our author concluded that the conclusions aren't true. In order for this answer to be right, both the evidence and the conclusion would have been dealing with the concept of true. In this actual argument, the evidence dealt with "whether conclusions are same" and the conclusion dealt with "whether conclusions are true".

   5%