Describing errors of conditional reasoning

[alex.chasan]

I'm trying to wrap my head around some of the convoluted, ultra-abstract ways answer choices to flaw questions...

In the context of this hypothetical question...could all 5 of these answers be correct??

Bruce: "People say that if Jason lives in Houston, then he lives in Texas. But they're wrong because I know people who live in Texas but not in Houston."

Bruce's argument is flawed in that it:

(A) Takes a sufficient condition to be a necessary condition.

(B) Overlooks alternatives.

(C) Mistakenly infers from the fact that a phenomenon always gives rise to a situation, no other phenomenon could also give rise to that situation.

(D) Confuses an occurrence which is required with one that is merely adequate.

(E) Presumes, without warrant, that because a particular circumstance assures another, it is the only circumstance which could do so.

Overlooks alternatives.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's a really sophisticated question. It looks like you've had plenty of time to review the really challenging problems!

Your analysis is accurate, although I'm not sure about answer choice (B). While technically one could say that the argument overlooks alternatives, that seems really vague. I don't think you'll see it phrased that way too often. But the other four are very extreme examples of saying that the argument mistakes a sufficient condition for one that that is necessary.

Great work!