Q11 - Letter to the editor: According to

[monygg85]

I got this wrong so I'm giving it a try here.

So the question stem asks us to find the flaw in the argument. A flaw in the reasoning.

The core would basically says that the editors opinion on what should be done is wrong because the writers themselves shouldn't give that opinion unless they themselves were ready to put their names on it.

(A) doesnt criticize the editor if anything its the writers
(B) The correct answer. Im not entirely sure why its right but I think its because the author of the stimulus starts off by describing whats been said in the article and how its wrong but then goes off and justifies that by talking about the writers lack of action on that issue itself, which is a turnaround from the initial conversation about the content of the article itself.
(C) I picked this because I didnt see how B worked exactly. So I eliminated everything else as well.
(D) Just doesnt happen on here, theres not much of an attack
(E) Anonymous is used correctly both times, pretty simple to see

If anyone could just help clarify my confusion with B, or lack of understanding it. I, for the most part, understand why C isn't right...because there is no error of reasoning committed in the argument. If I messed up or missed anything just correct me.

Thanks guys

[rinagoldfield]

Hi monygg85. Great explanation of (A), (D), and (E).

In terms of (B) and (C), I think it would be helpful to look back at the argument core. Here’s my summary of the letter-writer's argument:

The authors of the article are anonymous

Therefore...

The authors’ statement that "the right to remain anonymous is trivial" is wrong

The letter-writer implicitly accuses the anonymous writers of hypocrisy: how dare they diminish the right to anonymity when they actively exercise that right? Yet the letter-writer never criticizes the authors’ argument. Rather, he criticizes the authors and their choice to remain anonymous. This is an ad-hominem attack.

(B) captures this"”it describes the way the letter-writer circumvents the actual issue of anonymity by attacking the authors.
(C) is unsupported. The letter-writer doesn’t commit the same error of hypocrisy he accuses the authors of. Put more specifically, he doesn’t argue against the right to remain anonymous while choosing anonymity for himself.

Hope this helps!

[monygg85]

Makes perfect sense! Thank you! I just got caught up in the stimulus going back and forth I guess

[WaltGrace1983]

Could we say that (D) is wrong because the author doesn't use the writers' apparent contradiction to attack them personally? Instead, the author uses the writers' apparent contradiction to attack their argument?

It seems that (D) would be more appropriate as an answer to something like "He says that the New York Yankees are going to win the world series. Boy is he stupid." The difference here is that the attack is the actual conclusion vs. a supporting point to the conclusion. Or do I have this all wrong? Also, it seems very hasty to say that the author knows NOTHING about the writers - the author does know that they wrote about anonymity but were not anonymous themselves.

[maryadkins]

Both of those are good points, Walt, yes.

[JBLSAT423]

First post. Decided that it would help me to start writing out my thoughts on questions I struggled with.

This question boiled down to (B) and (C) for me.

(B) Yes it diverts the attention away from what the writers did, but seems general. Could there be a better answer?

(C) In my mind, this one looked better, so I picked it. His criticizing the writers for saying you should be required to present identification on demand, saying that no, we shouldn't be required to do this. Yet, he completely goes against this idea, and says that the writers should be have not posted this article anonymously.

I think what it comes down to, is that this wasn't an 'error of reasoning', like the answer choice says, there's no real flaw in reasoning. It's just a belief, a personal preference if you will.