PT150 S3 Q16 ExplanationAutomobile executive: Our critics say

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: inapplicable principle3% picked this

   attempts to apply a general principle to a situation to which that principle

   Is there a general principle? Ummm, not sure. Should we count "if it's easier, it's safer" as a general principle? We probably could, but in that case the principle seems pretty applicable to the conversation at hand.

   3%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   fails to address the substantive point of the criticism that it

   Why this is right

   What was the substantive point of the criticism? It was that the communications devices installed are dangerously distracting. Did our author respond by arguing that the communications device is not dangerously distracting? Not really. He responded by saying that the device is easier to use than other devices, and drivers who want to use them are gonna use them regardless. We would certainly argue that a dashboard mounted phone is easier to use than a phone laying on the passenger seat, but they are both dangerously distracting. The problem here is really one of Relative vs. Absolute language. The author is trying to make a case that his company's phones are less dangerous than perhaps an alternative phone would be. But it might nevertheless be true in an absolute sense that the company's phones are dangerously distracting.

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

   79%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw4% picked this

   treats a condition that is necessary to establish its conclusion as one that is sufficient

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. Whenever we see this answer choice, we can ask ourselves, "Was there conditional logic in the argument?" If not, then this answer will always be wrong. There was no conditional logic in this argument.

   4%
4. D

   Opposite11% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that all communications devices are the same with respect

   First of all, this would probably never be a correct answer, because you're not likely to see an author assuming something so strong as "ALL devices are the SAME". But in this case, our author seems to be assuming / insinuating that their company's devices are not the same, that they are not as dangerous as other communication devices.

   11%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw4% picked this

   is based on premises that presume the truth of the

   This describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, in which the premises restate or assume the truth of the conclusion. This answer is wrong 99% of the time we see it. This had premises such as - drivers who wanna use a device are going to regardless - our device is easier to use - an easier to use device is safer Those aren't restating the conclusion.

   4%