Professor: One cannot frame

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Flawed / Incorrect16% picked this

   attempting to show that one piece of reasoning is incorrect by comparing it with another, presumably

   The is answer would work if it flipped its frown upside down. It's fair to say this argument "attempts to show that one piece of reasoning (about history) is correct by comparing it with another, presumably sound, piece of reasoning (about one's physical environment)".

   16%
2. B

   No Absurd Implications0% picked this

   developing a case for one particular conclusion by arguing that if that conclusion were false,

   There's no part of this argument where the author says, "After all, if a single history book didn't give a distorted view, then that would lead to X, Y, and Z, which is surely absurd". Showing the implications of logic is a very common correct answer on Method, but it doesn't match this argument at all.

   0%
3. C

   Correct72% picked this

   making a case for the conclusion of one argument by showing that argument's resemblance to

   Why this is right

   Here is the fixed version of (A). The author makes the case for "each history book offers an incomplete view" by showing that "a single momentary perception offers an incomplete view". When authors rely on an analogy, they are presuming that the analogy has merit and relevance, so it's fair to say that our author assumes that the analogous argument she's leaning on is a cogent (i.e. reasonable) one.

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

   72%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   arguing that because something has a certain group of characteristics, it must also have another,

   The "certain group of characteristics" is the hardest thing to match, so if it feels weird enough to reject this, that's good enough reason to eliminate it. If we were trying to match it up, we'd start with the conclusion, which is saying that "a single history book always offers a distorted view". According to this answer choice's language, "something = a single history book" and "closely, related characteristic = offers a distorted view". That would mean that the premise should be saying that "something = a single history book" has a certain group of characteristics. But there's no premise that says that a single history book has a certain group of characteristics.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   arguing that a type of human cognition is unreliable in one instance because it has been shown to

   The conclusion is about a single history book, not a type of human cognition. The analogy was about a type of human cognition (a single perception) being an unreliable gauge of a physical environment, but the conclusion about a history book offering only one perspective on history has nothing to do with a type of human cognition being unreliable.

   9%