A
takes for granted that all religious music is inspiring
The music critic doesn’t discuss whether religious music is inspiring. The music critic only argues that Vierne’s works are religious.
B
confuses two different meanings of the term “religious”
The music critic equivocates between “divinely inspired” and “religious.” The meaning that the critic is assigning to the word “religious” doesn’t necessarily align with the meaning of “religious” used by people who say Vierne’s music isn’t religious.
C
overlooks the possibility that some organ music is not divinely inspired
The music critic never claims that all organ music is divinely inspired. The critic only states that Vierne’s music is divinely inspired.
D
confuses two different meanings of the term “symphonies”
The music critic’s use of the word “symphonies” is consistent throughout the argument. The critic uses the word “symphonies” in the same way both times.
E
takes for granted that all organ symphonies are religious music
The music critic never claims that all organ music is religious. The critic only states that Vierne’s music is religious.
Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that it’s safe to assume that either underinflating or overinflating tires damages the tires. Why? Because no one has proven that underinflation or overinflation don’t damage tires.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “lack of support vs. false conclusion” flaw, where a position is taken to be false just because no one has proved that it’s true. Specifically, the argument rejects the possibility that underinflation and overinflation are harmless, just because that possibility hasn’t been proven.
A
The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate.
The argument does not assume that underinflation and overinflation damage tires. There is support offered, even if that support is weak.
B
The argument overlooks that what is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.
There isn’t anything in the argument that’s “not susceptible to proof”. No one is claiming that it’s impossible to prove whether underinflation and overinflation are harmless to tires, just that it hasn’t been proven yet.
C
The argument fails to specify how it is that underinflation or overinflation harms tire tread.
The mechanism of how tire tread might be harmed isn’t relevant to the question of whether it’s safe to assume that the tire tread will be harmed, just because no one has proven that it won’t be harmed.
D
The argument rejects the possibility that what has not been proven is nevertheless true.
The argument rejects the possibility that it might be true that underinflation and overinflation don’t damage tires, even though it hasn’t been proven. This possibility undermines the idea that it’s “safe to assume” that the tires will be damaged.
E
The argument fails to precisely define the terms “underinflation” and “overinflation.”
The exact definition of what counts as an underinflated or overinflated tire is irrelevant to whether or not those conditions are likely to damage tires, based on the fact that they haven’t been proven not to damage tires.