Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents. ████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████████████ ██████ ████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███
Marianne claims that she should not be held responsible for her humming, which distracts other players during chess matches. Marianne supports this conclusion by explaining that she was unaware of her humming, and her humming is therefore involuntary.
Marianne assumes that professional chess players should not be held responsible for involuntary behavior, even when it distracts their opponents. Marianne also assumes that she should not be held responsible for future humming, even though she has now been made aware of the fact that she hums. In other words, she assumes that nothing will change regarding the involuntary nature of her humming.
We can strengthen Marianne's argument by affirming one of these assumptions, or conversely, weaken it by undermining one of the assumptions.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████
Chess players who ███ ███████ █████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ████
Someone has already protested, so this doesn't help Marianne much. Her argument is about what consequences she should face (or not face) now that her humming has come to officials' attention, not about whether it should have been pointed out to begin with.
Of a player's ████████ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████████████ ███ █████████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██████
Marianne gives involuntariness as the key reason her humming shouldn't be punished. (B) affirms her assumption that involuntary behavior shouldn't be punished, thereby strengthening.
A person should ██ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██████████
(C) does the exact opposite of what we want. Marianne's humming, although involuntary, gives her an advantage by distracting her opponent. This would weaken Marianne's argument, not strengthen.
Types of behavior ████ ███ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ █████ ██████
(D) would weaken, not strengthen, Marianne's argument. Marianne says that her humming is involuntary as a reason she shouldn't be disqualified. If her humming were considered voluntary, that would really not be good for Marianne.
Chess players should ██ ████████████ ████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████████
Marianne's humming is involuntary, so she's not "attempting" to do anything. Besides, the conclusion we're trying to support is that Marianne should not be disqualified. (E) doesn't help with that.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic