Since anyone who makes

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: "good consequences"5% picked this

   The argument fails to make a crucial distinction between an action one is legally obligated to perform and an action with good consequences, and

   I would stop reading once we get to "good consequences", as evaluating whether any of these obligations are good/bad is out of scope.

   5%
2. B

   Opposite16% picked this

   The argument takes for granted that there are obligations other than those resulting from agreements made, and it fails to consider the possibility that

   The first half of this kills the answer enough to stop reading. The argument is failing to consider that there might be an obligation that isn't something you've agreed to. This answer says the author is actually assuming that. When the author makes her illegal reversal, she assumes that obligations only come from agreements made.

   16%
3. C

   Not Circular4% picked this

   The argument contains a premise that is logically equivalent to its conclusion, and it takes for granted that there are only certain actions

   Stop reading after the first ingredient accuses the argument of Circular Reasoning, which did not happen. The 2nd half is also messed up, since the concept of "should agree" is out of scope.

   4%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   The argument treats a condition that is sufficient to make something an obligation as also a requirement for something to be an obligation, and

   Why this is right

   The first flaw was an illegal reversal of conditional logic, which is known as Necessary vs. Sufficient. The second flaw involved going from "if you have an obligation ? " to "if you have a legal obligation ? ", so the author is thinking, "If you have an obligation, then I guess we're talking about a legal obligation".

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

   72%
5. E

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   The argument rests on an ambiguous use of the term "action," and it fails to consider the possibility that people are sometimes unwilling to

   Out of Scope: "ambiguous use of action" / "unwilling to perform" The term "action" is used consistently in a vague but perfectly understandable way. The use of a term in two different senses is a Famous Flaw (usually wrong answer) called Equivocation. No part of the argument is speaking about whether people are willing / unwilling to fulfill their agreements and obligations. It is only speaking about how they are obligated to perform them.

   3%