PT153 S3 Q26 ExplanationEmployee: Vernonʼs behavior in last monthʼs incident

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Flaw1% picked this

   illicitly using a key term in different senses during the course

   This refers to the famous Equivocation flaw, but in this argument, all the repeated terms were used consistently.

   1%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw16% picked this

   confusing behavior that is sufficient to justify an action with behavior that is required to

   This is the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, which is when the author presents a conditional rule and then uses it in a backwards or opposite fashion in order to get to his conclusion. There was no conditional logic here, so as soon as we see Nec vs. Suff, we out.

   16%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   offering as its primary evidence a premise that is equivalent to

   This refers to the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, in which - the conclusion restates a premise - conclusion presumed to be true - presupposes what it seeks to establish - assumes what it sets out to prove This answer is wrong 99% of the time, so learning the telltale taglines makes this easier to dispense with. Circular arguments have no actual supporting ideas, just the author's presumption of being correct. This argument definitely has supporting ideas, such as descriptions of the inconsistent treatment of Vernon vs. some higher-ranking employees.

   3%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw34% picked this

   treating behavior that can sometimes result in a certain consequence as behavior that always results

   This is a very seldom occurring distinction we might call Possible vs. Certain. The flaw here had nothing to do with that sort of distinction. Because the answer has the structure, "treats X as Y", we'd want to know whether X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion or an idea the author had en route to the conclusion. Was there a premise about "behavior that sometimes results in a certain consequence"? We could potentially say Vernon's unprofessional behavior resulted in the consequence of getting fired. Does the author now start thinking/concluding that "unprofessional behavior always results in getting fired"? Definitely not. In fact the opposite. The next part of the argument is presenting counterexamples where unprofessional behavior did not result in that consequence. This answer might be closer to working if it said, "treats behavior that can sometimes results in a certain consequence as behavior that should always result in that consequence". With that answer, we'd have to interpret it as "since unprofessional behavior SOMETIMES results in not-getting fired, it should always result in not-getting fired".

   34%
5. E

   Correct45% picked this

   inferring that one specific response to a problem is necessary without considering another

   Why this is right

   This is just testing whether we heard the alternative option: you know, the other way you could be consistent would be to just fire the offending higher-ranking employees.

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

   45%