Self-paced
Words like "employee," "payee," and "detainee" support the generalization, crudely stated, that words with the ending -ee designate the person affected in the specified way by an action performed by someone else. ███ ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ███████████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ █████████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████
Summarize Argument
“Employee” refers to the person who gets employed. “Payee” refers to the person who gets paid. “Detainee” refers to the person who gets detained. Hence, the general rule seems to be that the suffix “-ee” denotes the person on the receiving end of someone else’s action. However, “absentee” refers to the person performing the action (the person who is absent), which appears to contradict this rule.
How to resolve this apparent discrepancy? One can distinguish between two-party transactions (such as getting paid, being employed, or being detained) versus single-party transactions (such as being absent). In two-party transactions, the general rule holds true: “-ee” does indeed refer to the person on the receiving end of the action.
21.
The argument does which one ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███████
a
provides additional support ███ ███ ████████ ██████████████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███████ ████ █ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████
Descriptively inaccurate. No additional support is provided for the original generalization. No demonstration is made that the counterexample is misanalyzed. Instead, the argument shows that the supposed counterexample is not even governed by the original rule.
b
dismisses the counterexample ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ █████████████
Descriptively inaccurate. The counterexample is not dismissed on the grounds that its negative impact was insignificant. Instead, the argument shows that the counterexample has no negative impact at all.
c
concedes that the ████████ ██████████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████████ ████ ██████████
Descriptively inaccurate. The argument does not claim that all generalizations have exceptions. It merely sharpens the boundaries of the original rule, restricting it to two-party transactions. Hence, the proposed counterexample is irrelevant, not an exception.
d
narrows the scope ██ ███ ██████████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████
Descriptively accurate. The scope of the generalization is narrowed to two-party transactions only. Hence, the putative counterexample (“absentee”) is no longer relevant, as it involves a single-party transaction.
e
shows how replacing ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ██ ████████
Descriptively inaccurate. The argument does not reveal the counterexample to be spurious by “replacing” anything. Rather, it reveals the counterexample to be spurious by making a crucial distinction between single- and two-party transactions.