Historian: The revolutionary party has

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Self-Contradiction21% picked this

   gives mutually inconsistent responses to the

   This refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Internal Contradiction, in which one thing the author says contradicts something else they say (that's what "mutually inconsistent" means). This is almost never the correct answer, because authors almost never contradict themselves. This author definitely did not contradict herself.

   21%
2. B

   Correct51% picked this

   fails to establish that the revolutionary party caused

   Why this is right

   This is a really weird correct answer because it's technically saying, "The author assumed one of the claims in the conclusion". She definitely never proved that the revolutionary party caused no suffering. She only established that they caused less suffering than critics claim. So by concluding that the party "caused no suffering", she is making an unfounded claim. Hence, we can call her out on it as a flaw.

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

   51%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything: underestimated3% picked this

   fails to establish that any of the revolutionary party's critics underestimated

   Because the answer starts with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can just ask ourselves, "Did the author need to assume this?" Did she need to assume that some of the party's critics underestimated the party's power? No, if anything the paragraph makes it sound like critics overestimated the party's power. The critics think that the party did great suffering, and the author says "No, they weren't that powerful." So the author is somewhat implying that the critics overestimate the power of the party. At no point does she need it to be true that some of the critics underestimated the party's power.

   3%
4. D

   Contradicted: provides no evidence23% picked this

   provides no evidence that the revolutionary party's goals were

   The author does provide some evidence that the party's goals were not overambitious: most of the party's goals were quickly achieved. If a goal is quickly achieved, it suggests that the goal was realistic, not overambitious.

   23%
5. E

   Irrelevant Objection2% picked this

   fails to consider other major criticisms of the

   Since the answer starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat it like Weaken. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- there are other major criticisms of the party besides overambitious goals and causing great suffering." Of course not. This author is only concerned with overambitious goals and suffering.

   2%