Byrne: One of our club's bylaws

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that Thibodeaux has arrived late for two or more

   Arriving late for a general monthly meeting is not discussed in the club’s bylaw.

   5%
2. B

   Correct78% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that if certain events each produce a particular result, then no other event is

   Why this is right

   This describes logic that is bidirectional. It presents the assumption which reverses the logic of the club’s bylaw.

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

   78%
3. C

   Bad Objection16% picked this

   takes for granted that an assumption required to establish the argument's conclusion is sufficient to

   The most glaring assumption the author is making is that "these are the only two ways to get suspended". That assumption is required to establish the conclusion. But we couldn't be mad if the author was acting like that assumption would also be sufficient. That assumption would be sufficient! We're mad at the author for assuming "there are only two ways to get suspended". This answer is saying we're mad that the author thinks such an assumption is sufficient. We can't be mad at that, because such an assumption is sufficient. If we say, "there are only two ways to get suspended: X and Y. Thibo got suspended and didn't do Y. Thus, he must have done X", that is rock solid logic.

   16%
4. D

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   fails to specify at what point someone arriving at a club meeting is

   The argument does not rest on the point someone arriving at a club meeting is officially deemed late.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope0% picked this

   does not specify how long Thibodeaux has been

   The length of time Thibodeaux has been an officer is not relevant to the argument.

   0%