City council member: The Senior Guild

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   distorts an argument and then attacks this

   The author doesn't dissect the Senior Guild's argument, other than to say he basically agrees with it. This answer choice describes a somewhat famous flaw called Straw Man.

   3%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match0% picked this

   dismisses a claim because of its source rather than because of

   The evidence doesn't say anything bad about The Senior Guild. In fact, the author seems sympathetic to their cause. This answer describes the famous flaw Ad Hominem, in which you reject someone's ideas based on their past behavior, vested interest, or ulterior motive.

   0%
3. C

   Correct93% picked this

   presumes, without sufficient warrant, that one event will lead to a particular causal

   Why this is right

   Is the author assuming that one event will lead to a particular causal sequence? Yes, he's saying "If we grant this exception, we'll end up granting other exceptions and then we'll end up granting exceptions to other ordinances. Has he sufficiently convinced us of this Slippery Slope? No, it seems entirely possible to just grant the deserved exception for the Senior Guild without also giving it to non-deserving parties.

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

   93%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   contains premises that contradict one

   There aren't any premises that contradict each other. The premises are just that "If we do X, Y and Z will occur. So if we want to avoid those unsavory consequences, we shouldn't do X." There's no contradiction there. This describes a Famous Flaw called Internal Contradiction.

   1%
5. E

   Opposite / Bad Premise Match4% picked this

   fails to make a needed distinction between deserved exceptions and

   This is tempting, in the sense that we're screaming at the author, "Just give the Senior Guild its deserved exception. There's no reason to think it'll lead to undeserved exceptions. The city council can distinguish between deserved and undeserved ones." This author fails to consider that the city council can distinguish between deserved exceptions and undeserved ones. But this author doesn't fail to see the difference between the two. His whole argument is based on the idea that the two are different: he's saying, "I would be fine with this first exception, but since it would lead to these different (distinguished) exceptions that are undeserved, I don't think we should do it."

   4%