Q1 - Insurance that was to become

[roflcoptersoisoi]

The mother's argument:

Premise: Mother is sole beneficiary and is ill.
Conclusion: Policy amount should be payed.

Flaw: Appeals to emotion and pity. Presumes that her illnesses and the fact that she is the sole beneficiary is sufficient reason for the policy amount to be payed. Maybe it should, but not for the reasons she has provided.

(A) The mother doesn't use circular reasoning, which is what this answer choice is suggesting.
(B) Bingo
(C) The argument makes no such distinctions if anything she conflates the two, by using what is presumably a family obligation (we're not sure if this is the case) to justify fulfilling a business one (the policy amount being payed).
(D) The mother doesn't engage in ad hominems.
(E) The mother doesn't mistake a cause for an effect.

[ohthatpatrick]

Very nicely and succinctly done! Good work calling out the classic flaws in the other answers and using "conflating" in a tasty and accurate fashion.

[MoiseiD954]

It is not a common flaw in more recent PTs, is it?

I recall seeing it a lot in incorrect answer choices