Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that every

Whenever someone uses the quote "everything in moderation" I always respond back with "including moderation!" This question is a bit like that.

What is Lance saying? He's claiming that something is true, and it's a pretty strong claim: "every general rule has at least one exception." So we could say that Lance's statement is a general rule. Well, according to Lance, what's the deal with general rules? They all have exceptions! So what does that mean? It means that Lance's general rule must have an exception too.

That's starting to sound a bit like an undergrad philosophy class, so let's separate each of the elements:

• Lance claims that every general rule has at least one exception
• Lance's claim is a general rule
• Therefore, if Lance's claim is true, then it must have at least one exception

Ok, so Lance's general rule must have an exception. What's the big deal about that? Well, if there's an exception to Lance's statement, that means there's at least one general rule out there with no exceptions. And if there's a general rule out there with no exceptions, that means that Lance's statement is false because he said that all general rules have exceptions.

That is essentially what Frank is pointing out. Lance's argument has lead him into a contradiction: he simultaneously believes that all general rules have exceptions but that his general rule has no exceptions. That means that answer choice (B) is a good choice.

I hope that helps!

Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that every general rule has at least one exception.
Frank: What you conclude is itself a general rule. If we assume that it is true, then there is at least one general rule that has no exceptions. Therefore, you must withdraw your conclusion.

Frank’s argument is an attempt to counter Lance’s conclusion by

We know that Frank counters Lance but 'how' is the question. Frank actually takes Lance's argument as is and moulds it against Lance itself smartly, eventually contradicting Lance. How is it possible??
Frank simply takes one exception that Lance's mentions and reverses it 180deg.

(A) demonstrating that Lance assumes the very thing he sets out to prove
(B) showing that Lance’s conclusion involves him in a contradiction
(C) showing that no general rule can have exceptions
(D) establishing that experience teaches us the opposite of what Lance concludes
(E) showing that it has no implications for any real cases

A gives some hope but diverts from core of the argument by seeking to point out about the assumption that is nowhere identifiable.

Answer B.