PT143 · S3 · Q7 Employee: My boss says that my

Since this answer begins with takes for granted / presumes that X, we can just ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume X. Is this author clearly assuming that "the boss's assessments are usually incorrect (more than 50% of the time)?" No, the author is only saying that the boss's assessment, in this case, is incorrect.

Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility that X, we can just ask ourselves whether X would weaken the argument. Would it be an objection if we said, "Hey, author -- presenting people with too much detail isn't the only thing that can cause their attention to wander"? No. The author would correctly say, "Cool. I never said that it was the only thing that can cause attention to wander. I was just saying that if I had added more detail then it would have caused attention to wander, which would have been bad."

Since this is structured infers X based only on Y we would want to make sure that X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Is the conclusion "a generalization"? Nope. It's a specific claim that "my boss was incorrect [about what she said about my presentation]." So we can eliminate it just from that. This answer alludes to the Famous Flaw, Sampling, in which a premise shows that X is true for some small sample of things and then the conclusion argues that X is true for a wider set of cases (without appreciating that the sample of things might be unrepresentative or atypical).

The idea of "detail" is used consistently. It means "specific facts/numbers". This answer alludes to the Famous Flaw, Equivocation, in which an author uses the same term or concept multiple times but the term has a very different meaning from one usage to the next. This answer is almost never correct.