Many people change their wills on their own every few years, in response to significant changes in their personal or financial circumstances. This practice can create a problem foe the executor when these people are careless and do not date their wills: the executor will then often know neither which one of several undated wills is the most recent, nor whether the will drawn up last has ever been found. Therefore, people should not only date their wills but also state in any new will which will it supersedes, for then there would not be a problem to begin with.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) treats a partial solution to the stated problem as though it were a complete solution.
(B) Fails to distinguish between prevention of a problem and successful containment of the adverse effects that the problem might cause.
(C) Proposes a solution to the stated problem that does not actually solve the problem but merely makes someone else responsible for solving the problem.
(D) Claims that a certain action would be a change for the better without explicitly considering what negative consequences the action might have.
(E) Proposes that a certain action be based on information that would be unavailable at the time proposed for that action.
I scale down to A and B. The key is the bold part of the conclusion.
A seems perfect,at first, coz of "complete solution" / no more problem. But then, I'm confused why A uses " partial solution"? We don't know if it's partial or not! If we know, it's probably because we think "out of scope" then.
B: from the conclusion, we see clearly that:
+what the executors suggest: the unbold part-----> a prevention of the problem.
+ the bold part -----> a successful/ consummate containment of adverse effects that the problem might cause
The executor obviously fails to distinguish these two.
I would go for B even though A is tempting.