Generally, it is important that people practice

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct75% picked this

   logicians' being illogical in their discussions of logic constitutes incompetence, whereas physicians' having an unhealthy

   Why this is right

   This answer identifies the critical disanalogy that undermines the argument. The argument treats two cases as parallel exceptions to "practice what you preach," but they are fundamentally different. A logician who is illogical in discussions of logic is failing at the core competency of their profession. Logic is not just what logicians preach — it is the tool they must use to do their work. Being illogical when discussing logic means being incompetent at the very activity that defines the profession. By contrast, a physician's personal lifestyle is separate from their professional competence. A doctor who smokes, overeats, or never exercises can still diagnose diseases, perform surgery, and prescribe effective treatments. The physician's failure to practice what they preach involves personal behavior, not professional skill. The argument treats these as equivalent exceptions, but one involves professional incompetence while the other involves a personal shortcoming that does not affect job performance. This disanalogy destroys the argument's reasoning.

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

   75%
2. B

   Not a Good Objection9% picked this

   if a physician's health deteriorates badly, the physician may not be able to

   This answer raises a scenario where a physician's health deterioration might prevent them from treating patients. While this is true in extreme cases, it does not identify the argument's actual flaw. The argument's problem is not that unhealthy physicians might eventually become too sick to work — it is that the comparison between logicians and physicians is fundamentally flawed from the start. Even a physician in perfect enough health to practice medicine can have unhealthy habits without being professionally incompetent, whereas a logician who is illogical in logical discussions is incompetent by definition. This answer addresses a peripheral concern about the physician example rather than identifying the core disanalogy between the two cases.

   9%
3. C

   Out of Scope9% picked this

   physicians who are incompetent to practice medicine can cause more harm than can logicians who

   The argument is not about the relative harm that incompetent professionals might cause. Whether incompetent physicians cause more harm than incompetent logicians is irrelevant to whether the two cases are proper exceptions to "practice what you preach." The argument's flaw is that it treats two structurally different situations as equivalent: one where the gap between preaching and practice constitutes incompetence (logicians), and one where it does not (physicians). Comparing the severity of harm from incompetence in each profession is a completely different conversation that does not touch the argument's actual reasoning error. The issue is whether the analogy holds, not which profession poses greater risks when things go wrong.

   9%
4. D

   Not a Good Objection1% picked this

   it is more difficult to become logical in one's discussions of logic than it is to

   The relative difficulty of becoming logical versus adopting a healthy lifestyle does not address the argument's flaw. The argument fails because it treats two structurally different cases as analogous: a logician being illogical in discussions of logic is a case of professional incompetence, while a physician having an unhealthy lifestyle is a personal shortcoming separate from professional skill. How hard it is to achieve either standard is irrelevant to whether the two situations are properly analogous. Even if becoming logical were the easiest thing in the world, the argument would still fail because the analogy compares two fundamentally different types of "not practicing what you preach." Difficulty is beside the point when the core issue is the nature of the gap between preaching and practice.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   although it is not necessary for logicians to be logical in order to be competent to discuss logic,

   This answer concedes the argument's claim about logicians and then adds that being logical is still "desirable." But the argument's flaw is not that being logical is merely desirable rather than necessary — the flaw is that the analogy between logicians and physicians is broken. The argument treats the logician case as equivalent to the physician case, when in fact a logician who is illogical in logical discussions is professionally incompetent, while a physician with an unhealthy lifestyle is not. This answer essentially agrees with the argument's framing (logicians need not be logical to be competent) and adds a minor qualification, missing the fundamental problem with the comparison entirely.

   5%