Self-study
On Saturday Melvin suggested that Jerome take the following week off from work and accompany him on a trip to the mountains. ██████ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███
Objective: Identify a Flaw
The argument concludes that Jerome must have been untruthful in turning down an unscheduled trip on the basis that he couldn't afford the cost of travelling plus the wages he would lose by ditching work. And how do we know that this excuse wasn't Jerome's real reason? Because he says the same thing every time he's invited on an unscheduled trip, regardless of where the trip is to.
The issue here is, Jerome's excuse could be true every time he gives it. It's entirely possible that any unscheduled travel would be too expensive for Jerome, especially since he would lose the same amount of wages per day no matter how cheap the destination. Jerome giving the same excuse repeatedly simply isn't evidence that the excuse is false, at least without more information to suggest that.
22.
The reasoning is most vulnerable ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
It attempts to █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████
There's no suggestion of an attack on Martin's behavior. No one is accusing Martin of improperly issuing trip invitations. (A) just doesn't describe the argument.
b
It fails to █████████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ███████
Whether or nor Martin can afford this trip is beside the point. We need to attack the argument's reasoning on the topic of Jerome giving a false excuse, and (B) doesn't do that.
c
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ████████
Jerome's vacation preferences aren't relevant unless we assume that cost isn't truly his reason for refusing this trip, which would mean we already accept the conclusion. But the flaw is present before we even get that far: there's no reason to think cost isn't the real issue.
d
It assumes that ██ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████
(D) has one major problem: we don't know if Jerome has other reasons to refuse. It's only the argument's conclusion that implies Jerome has another reason, but there's no premise telling us for sure. As far as we know, cost could truly be Jerome's only reason.
If there were a premise which concretely presented another reason, then (D) could be correct. But the argument's only premise is that Jerome has repeatedly given the same excuse, which just doesn't indicate that the excuse is false.
e
It does not ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ███
In other words, the argument doesn't consider that cost could be the true reason. This accurately identifies the flaw: Jerome could just give the same excuse multiple times because it's true. Because the argument doesn't consider this possibility, it can't convince us that the excuse is really false.