3 comments

  • Friday, Oct 13 2017

    @akikookmt881

    I know this is months later, but I just encountered this question again and the flaw seemed so obvious to me! Finally seeing improvements!

    Looking back, Your explanation was spot on! :)

    1
  • Tuesday, Aug 15 2017

    Hey sorry for the delayed response. I was working on other sections.

    Thanks for your reply, it makes things much clearer. But the language in this is making it very hard for it to be intuitive. I still had to go back and forth with your explanation a couple of times to get it!

    0
  • Tuesday, Aug 01 2017

    (D) is saying:

    The argument does not accept the possibility (="rejects the possibility") that even if no one has been able to show (= "has not been proven") that underinflation or overinflation do not harm tire tread, it could still be true that under inflation or overinflation do harm tire tread.

    The argument confuses the absense of the evidence against underinflation or overinflation harming tire with the evidence for underinflation or overinflation harming tire.

    (= the lack of the evidence for underinflation or overinflation not harming tire conflated with a rejection of underinflation or overinflation not harming tire conflated)

    Hope this helps :)

    1

Confirm action

Are you sure?