PT151 S4 Q23 ExplanationIf a piece of legislation

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular9% picked this

   It draws a conclusion that is merely a disguised restatement of one

   This refers to the famous Circular reasoning flaw, which shows up a ton in Flaw answer choices and is almost never correct. The conclusion here is that the recently enacted trade agreement represents a series of compromises. Was either of the two premises saying that the new trade agreement is a results of compromises? No. The first premise (the 1st sentence) doesn't talk about this new trade agreement at all, and the second premise (the final claim) doesn't say anything about compromises, just that people are unhappy with the new agreement.

   9%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   It concludes that a condition is necessary for a certain result merely from the claim that the condition

   Why this is right

   This describes the #1 famous flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the argument presents a conditional relationship and then applies the rule in some illegal backwards or opposite fashion. The condition of "legislation resulting from compromise between competing groups" leads to the result of "all the competing groups are unhappy". By arguing in this style, Since .... We can conclude ... all these groups the recent agreement are unhappy with was the result of the recent agreement compromise ... the author is making it look like "the result of compromise" is a Necessary (right side) condition that necessarily follows from knowing that the competing groups are all unhappy with the new agreement.

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

   74%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Equivocation4% picked this

   It relies on understanding a key term in a quite different way in the conclusion from the way that term

   This refers to another of the top 10 famous flaws, Equivocation, in which the author uses the same term or concept but in two very different ways. Like Circular reasoning (and like Internal Contradiction), these Equivocation answers are almost always wrong. In order to ever pick them, we need to be able to find some term that is used twice, but each usage could be defined in very different ways. We don't have any such term here.

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: no Not Assumed6% picked this

   It takes for granted that no piece of legislation can ever satisfy all

   Because this starts with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves, "Did the argument need to assume this?" No, it's too harsh. This argument is only about this recent trade agreement. The author doesn't need to assume that no legislation ever could satisfy all competing groups. If we negate this assumption, we'd get "at least one piece of legislation can satisfy all competing interest groups". That negated assumption wouldn't weaken the argument; it wouldn't even be relevant to the argument since the recent trade agreement we're focused on is one that didn't satisfy all competing interest groups.

   6%
5. E

   Bad 2nd Half6% picked this

   It bases a conclusion about a particular case on a general principle that concerns a

   This argument does have a conclusion about a particular case (the recently enacted trade agreement), and it does use a general principle (the first sentence). But our problem with the argument isn't that the particular case isn't relevant to the general principle. It is. Our problem is just that the author is applying the principle in reverse.

   6%