Rifka: We do not need to stop

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match8% picked this

   contradict the conclusion of Rifka's argument without offering any reason to reject any of

   Craig does offer a reason to reject one of R's implicit premises. She is implicitly thinking that "we're not lost", and Craig is offering the reason "we are lost" to contradict R's conclusion.

   8%
2. B

   Correct59% picked this

   deny one of Rifka's implicit premises and thereby arrive at a

   Why this is right

   Implicit = unstated, tacit. So an implicit premise = unstated premise, i.e. an assumption. Does Craig deny one of Rifka's assumptions? Yes. She is assuming that "we're lost". Her argument only consists of a conditional premise and a conclusion. R's premise: If we were not lost, we would not need to stop and ask for directions. (R's assumption: We are not lost.) R's conclusion: We do not need to stop and ask for directions. Craig says "it is a fact that we are lost", so he does deny her assumption and he arrives at a different conclusion, "We do need to stop".

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

   59%
3. C

   Weak Premise Match26% picked this

   imply that Rifka's argument is invalid by accepting the truth of its premises while

   Craig does not seem to accept the truth of Rifka's premises. Rifka has one explicit premise, a conditional rule that Craig does not acknowledge he's accepting. And she has an implicit premise (we are not lost), which Craig is explicitly not accepting.

   26%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match0% picked this

   provide a counterexample to Rifka's

   Rifka does make a generalization, "If you are not lost, then you don't need to stop and ask for directions". Were Craig to have provided a counterexample to that, it would have sounded like, "Here's a case in which Person X was not lost, but Person X did need to stop and ask for directions." Craig isn't providing a counterexample to Rifka's rule; he's saying the rule doesn't apply in this case since they are lost. Counterexamples are cases in which the trigger applies, but the consequence doesn't. Craig is saying the trigger does not apply.

   0%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   affirm the truth of the stated premise of Rifka's argument while remaining noncommittal

   Craig is not noncommittal about Rifka's conclusion. He contradicts it.

   6%