Top Law Schools

Find a flaw: (PT 66-2-1)
Either we do A or B. B is not an option. So therefore we should do A.

Correct Answer: Presents a choice that's limited to two options, without giving reasons for not considering any other options.

But isn't the argument saying we only have two choices to work from? I'm confused because there were questions from previous PTs that this wasn't a flaw. Is it because this argument never said "ONLY"? Had the argument been "Our only options are A or B," then this wouldn't be a flaw?

Thanks

I think it's the word choice. In saying we can do either blank or blank, it makes it sound like those are the only two options. I think the emphasis should be more on the "can" part of the stimulus. We "can" do either one of these two things, meaning either blank or blank are two options that we "could/can" take. We can't do the one, so we must/should do the other. But logically, we know that's wrong because there are other potential options and we haven't ruled those out.

We can either ride our bike or take a cab. Put another way -- Two of the options we have are to ride our bike or take a cab. We don't have money to take a cab, so we must take our bikes.

It's just the wording that kinda throws it off a little.

The flaw is that it's creating a false dichotomy without giving you any facts to back it up. Remember all assumption family questions are flawed. No matter the argument the stimulus will always contain a flaw. Ask yourself, does it have to be either or? Can there be another option? Does the argument give you enough info to believe that there are only two options? Why is it that we have to build a new expressway or do nothing? Why can't we create car pool lanes? Maybe add more bus routes? Maybe we can expand the subway system? All are viable options that the argument does nothing to makes believe aren't viable options.