PT 56, S2, Q11 - Lance: If experience teaches us nothing

[bbirdwell]

Question Type: Determine the Function

Lance concludes that every general rule has an exception, as evidenced by experience. Frank argues that Lance’s conclusion is itself a general rule ("every general rule..."). He then states that since this rule cannot itself have an exception (a rule with no exceptions cannot exist), that Lance’s conclusion is false. Frank has used Lance’s own reasoning to contradict Lance’s argument, as (B) indicates.

While the above may be tricky to understand, one can also arrive at the correct answer by "ball-parking." The middle sentence of Frank’s statement is the confusing part. It is clear from the last sentence that he disagrees with Lance’s conclusion, and the first sentence, "What you conclude is itself a general rule," hints that Lance has contradicted himself somehow. Even if we don’t entirely understand the middle sentence, we can see that Frank disagrees with Lance, and is using Lance’s exact language and twisting it upon itself somehow.

(A) describes a circular argument, which is almost never the answer to such questions; here it does not describe Lance’s contradiction.
(C) is out of scope. Frank is primarily concerned with countering Lance, not demonstrating a universal truth about rules and exceptions
(D) is out of scope and does not describe Frank’s argument. Frank does not mention "experience" at all.
(E) is not even close, as Frank does not distinguish between "real" cases and other cases.