Trustee: The recent exhibit at

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Necessary vs. Sufficient24% picked this

   confuses a necessary condition for the museum’s remaining open with a sufficient condition for the

   This is a tempting answer in the sense that this is the #1 Famous Flaw, and there is conditional logic in this argument, but the author didn't perform an illegal reversal or negation (which is what this answer is saying). Rather, the author equated "less attendance" with "low attendance". An argument committing this answer choice's flaw would sound like, "In order for the museum to stay open, it can't have low attendance at the exhibit. They didn't have low attendance at the exhibit. Thus, the museum will stay open."

   24%
2. B

   Out of Scope: previous exhibits1% picked this

   takes for granted that no previous exhibit at the museum had received such

   When an answer begins takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume the idea that follows. Was this author assuming that this event had more media coverage than any previous exhibit ever? Of course not. She didn't commit to any extreme idea like that. She said it was extensively covered by local media, not that it was more extensively covered than ever before.

   1%
3. C

   Not Assumed: most3% picked this

   takes for granted that most people who read articles about the exhibit also

   The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time we see it. Did this author need it to be true that at least 51% of people who read an article about the exhibit came to see it? Would her argument be weakened if it were only 49% of people who read the article and later saw the exhibit? No her argument wouldn't be impacted, so she doesn't need to assume this idea.

   3%
4. D

   Correct69% picked this

   fails to address the possibility that the exhibit would have drawn enough visitors to prevent bankruptcy

   Why this is right

   When an answer begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the argument would be weakened if that idea were true. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- even without the media coverage, the exhibit still would have drawn enough visitors to present bankruptcy"? Sure! That allows us to argue against her conclusion. "You're wrong author, the museum could have remained open, even if there hadn't been coverage from the local media." This objection speaks to the gap between "less attendance" and "low attendance". It's possible that there was less attendance, but still enough attendance to avoid bankruptcy.

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

   69%
5. E

   Not Circular3% picked this

   presupposes the very conclusion that it is trying

   This answer describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which a premise restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. These answers are almost always wrong. No premise in this argument restated or required the idea that "the museum would have closed without coverage from the local media".

   3%