Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Professor Thomas says Professor York is too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom. The author implicitly calls this claim into question by citing the fact that Thomas’s claim is self-serving. Thomas is not as good a presenter as York, so Thomas’s criticism of York may simply be a result of envy.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author attacks Professor Thomas’s motivation rather than the merits of his claim. Whether Thomas is venting his frustration or otherwise making comments due to envy or out of self-interest has nothing to do with the truth of whether Professor York is actually too flamboyant or confrontational in the classroom.
A
confuses the distinction between being overly confrontational and engaging students by entertaining them
The author doesn’t mistake being too confrontational with being entertaining. There’s no sign that the author thinks one type of behavior is the same as the other.
B
presupposes the point it is attempting to establish
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion, which is an implicit questioning of Professor Thomas’s claim about Professor York, does not restate a premise.
C
mistakes Professor Thomas’s characterization of a view for an endorsement of that view
The author does not think Thomas endorsed anything that York did or said.
D
attacks Professor Thomas personally rather than addressing Professor Thomas’s argument
The author attacked Professor Thomas’s motivations rather than addressing the substance of Professor’s Thomas’s argument. We care about whether York is too flamboyant and confrontational. Thomas’s motive is irrelevant.
E
rejects the possibility that Professor York is in fact too confrontational
There’s a difference between rejecting Thomas’s conclusion that York is too confrontational and criticizing Thomas’s argument in favor of that conclusion. The author does the latter.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summarize Argument
The author claims that free will does not always have the same role in determining moral responsibility. The argument proceeds with two examples which support this claim by demonstrating situations where free will leads to different assessments of responsibility. First: the free choice to commit crimes leads to responsibility. Second: the free choice to eat a diet that causes a heart attack does not lead to responsibility for the consequences of having a heart attack while driving.
Identify Argument Part
The claim that a choice of diet can affect whether or not one has a heart attack helps to support the conclusion by demonstrating a situation where responsibility and free will have a different relationship from that associated with crime.
A
It is a subsidiary conclusion of the argument.
The claim about diet affecting heart attacks is not supported by anything else in the argument, so cannot be a subsidiary conclusion.
B
It is used to show that we should hold someone morally responsible for damages caused by having a heart attack while driving.
As with (C), the author never makes a claim about when we should or shouldn’t hold someone responsible. The argument is just trying to show that we assess responsibility differently in different situations.
C
It is cited as evidence that our concept of moral responsibility should be the same in all situations.
As with (B), the author makes no statement about how we should assess responsibility. The point of the argument is just to demonstrate that our assessment can differ based on factors other than free will.
D
It is used to disprove the claim that we should not hold criminals morally responsible for damages.
The author isn’t trying to disprove anything, and the argument never references a claim that we shouldn’t hold criminals morally responsible.
E
It is used in support of the conclusion of the argument.
This accurately describes what the claim about diet and heart attacks does in the argument: it’s a premise. It supports the conclusion as part of one of two conflicting examples.