What's the argument doing?Someone accuses American society of "discrimination" (meaning: oppressing certain groups unfairly).
The argument defends by saying: "But ALL societies discriminate! They distinguish between right and wrong, just and unjust."
The sneaky flaw?The word "discrimination" is being used in
TWO different ways:
1. First meaning (the accusation): Treating people unfairly based on their identity → This is
BAD discrimination (prejudice)2. Second meaning (the defense): Making distinctions between concepts → This is
NEUTRAL discrimination (judgment)Think of it this way:It's like saying: "You accused me of being a killer? Well, I killed time yesterday, and everyone kills time. So what's the big deal?"
See how ridiculous that sounds? Same trick here.
Why E is correct:The argument shifts the meaning of "discrimination" mid-argument to make the defense seem valid.
That's the flaw.Answer: EWhy others are wrong:(A) The universal claim IS pertinent to the defense - it's the core of the argument
(B) No statistics are needed for this type of logical argument
(C) Opposite - the argument says discrimination is everywhere, NOT unique to America
(D) Discussing egalitarian theories isn't required here
Hope this helps!