Advertisement: When you need a will

Answer choices

1. A

   Trap3% picked this

   A lawyer’s knowledge and level of expertise is at least as complex as that

   Unknown Comparison Too Strong: at least as Our author is assuming that a lawyer's expertise goes beyond that of software in all cases, much as a doctor's expertise goes beyond "some valid prescription". But our author doesn't need to assume any direct head to head comparison. If la lawyer's knowledge and expertise are only 90% as complex as a doctor, the argument is still fine.

   3%
2. B

   Correct92% picked this

   Do-it-yourself software cannot tailor a person’s will to meet that person’s particular circumstances as well

   Why this is right

   When we negate this, does it weaken? If we say that do-it-yourself software can tailor a person's will to a particular set of circumstances just as well as a lawyer can, does that weaken? Definitely! That was supposedly the advantage we were willing to pay more for, if we went with the human lawyer rather than the software. This argument was assuming a difference. It stated that lawyers could customize and insinuated that software couldn't customize, but it never established that idea. That's why it's correct to say this idea was assumed. And using our Negation Test, if software can customize as well as a lawyer can, then that would badly weaken the argument.

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

   92%
3. C

   Unnecessary2% picked this

   Many people who prepare their wills using do-it-yourself software are not satisfied

   This would strengthen, but it isn't necessary. If we negate it, it doesn't weaken. If everyone who uses software is satisfied, the author can still argue that paying for a lawyer would be worth it because you'd be more satisfied. She acknowledged that software will provide a valid will, so it's possible she'd acknowledge that software users will be satisfied, just not maximally satisfied.

   2%
4. D

   Too Strong: majority1% picked this

   In the majority of cases, valid wills do not adequately meet the needs of the persons for whom

   The concept of "most" is wrong 99% of the time on Necessary Assumption. When we negate it, we go from thinking something is true at least 51% of the time to thinking it's true at most 49% of the time. Do it matter whether valid wills adequately meet the needs of people 51% vs. 49% of the time? Nope. Just like (C), this answer is talking about adequate / satisfied. Our author is fine with thinking that valid wills leave someone satisfied / adequately meed their needs. She can concurrently think that a customized will from a lawyer would be even better.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   There is some way for an ill person to get a valid prescription without first

   This is lost in the analogy, which is not essential to the author's argument about whether someone who needs a will would always be wise to spend the money on a lawyer.

   2%