Columnist: An information design

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   bases its conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with

   This refers to the famous Internal Contradiction flaw (logically inconsistent = contradictory). The premises do not contradict each other (i.e. we don't have one premise saying 'The sky is blue' and another premise saying 'The sky is not blue')

   3%
2. B

   Not an Assumption Opposite Logic9% picked this

   takes for granted that any presentation that is not ineffective is

   Does our author's argument make this move? If Then this presentation ? it's a good isn't ineffective presentation No. Our author does seem to go from talking about "ineffective presentations" to "bad presentations". But if an author moves from A to B, we can't say that they take for granted that "anything that's not A is not B". That sort of "illegal light switch" move is opposite logic. Furthermore, beyond this opposite logic, we're not really worried about the author treating ineffective and bad as interchangeable adjectives for presentations. We're wondering why he thinks that GIAPS can't possibly be at least partly to blame.

   9%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match0% picked this

   bases an endorsement of a product entirely on that

   This answer choice says that the author is concluding that GIAPS is good (endorsing it) based on only one premise: GIAPS is popular. That doesn't match the argument. The author kind of concludes that GIAPS is not-bad (since he exempts it from possible blame), but his premise has nothing to do with popularity. His premise is that "tools can't be blamed for bad output; only users can".

   0%
4. D

   Correct87% picked this

   fails to consider that a tool might not effectively perform its

   Why this is right

   Would it weaken to that a tool might not effectively perform its intended function? Sure, that sounds like an objection. Since our job as the Defense lawyer here is to argue that GIAPS can be responsible for bad presentations, we can say, "Yes, it's only a tool, but some tools (like that crappy $15 coffee maker from the discount store) don't perform their intended function effectively". In other words, it wouldn't matter how good a user you were if you're using a tool that doesn't effectively perform its intended function. You might be a skilled manicurist, but if you're using a raggedy pair of nail clippers, you're not going to get good results no matter what.

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

   87%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw1% picked this

   rejects a claim because of its source rather than

   This describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which an author dismisses someone's point of view because that person either has a biased interest or conflicting past behavior. Our author is dismissing someone's point of view, but it's because our author doesn't think that tools can be blamed for poor output. Our author doesn't talk about the information design expert's biased interest or conflicting past behavior.

   1%