Council chair: The traditional code

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak2% picked this

   The council's use of the problematic rules in the traditional code

   This feels like it's trying to weaken by saying, "Sure, sure, the traditional code sucks, but at least we only need to use the problematic rules intermittently." That does somewhat degrade the importance of solving this problem, of switching codes, but it's not much of an objection. "Because this problematic thing is only intermittently problematic, let's not do anything about it." Given that the existing code is entrenched, there is some weakening effect to say that "if it's not that big a problem, do we really need to uproot the old code and switch to an alternate one?" But given that even the intermittent problematic nature is enough to cause enough quibbling that the council appears "unworthy of public confidence", it still seems like a problem worth solving.

   2%
2. B

   Too Weak14% picked this

   Those who have adopted the alternate code sometimes attempt to use it to obscure their

   Answers that only reflect "at least one" data point (some, sometimes, can, may, might, not all, not always) are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, since they have such little impact. Does it hurt this argument to say, "There has been at least one instance in which someone used the alternate code to obscure their opponent's understanding of procedure"? No. There's been at least one person who died in an elevator, but that doesn't mean it's a compelling reason to not ride in an elevator.

   14%
3. C

   Correct55% picked this

   Revision of the traditional code is underway that will eliminate the

   Why this is right

   This gives us a way to argue the Anti-Conclusion. Nuh-uh, author. We don't need to adopt the alternate code. We have another viable option --- let's just wait to complete the already-begun process of fixing the existing code. That way we'll get rid of the problematic stuff you're worried about without uprooting an entrenched, widely accepted code.

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

   55%
4. D

   Too Weak16% picked this

   It is not always reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain

   Answers that only reflect "at least one" data point (some, sometimes, can, may, might, not all, not always) are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, since they have such little impact. Does it hurt this argument to say, "There has been at least one instance in which it was not reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain public confidence?" Sure. It hurts the argument a tiny, tiny smidge. But it doesn't have nearly the force that the correct answer does.

   16%
5. E

   Strengthens13% picked this

   The alternate code contains few provisions that have thus far been criticized as

   This actually affirms the difference that the argument was assuming. Since our author wants to get rid of the traditional code because of its obscure / unnecessary rules, he must be assuming that his proposed replacement doesn't suffer from that same problem. This answer helps to affirm that assumption, so it strengthens.

   13%