Whittaker: There can be no such thing as the number of medical school

For B, you have to concentrate on the response of Hudson. He didn't try to counter Whittaker's argument. Rather, Hudson uses a similar analogy and shows an illogical conclusion.

Hi experts,
Please help to explain why each choice is right or wrong. Thanks.

hi bunuel !
confused between A and B
and end up marking A , eager to know why B is wrong
as it state ' specific example' is this the reason ?

Whittaker: There can be no such thing as the number of medical school students who drop out before their second year, because if they drop out, they never have a second year.

Signifies, if students do not drop out they shall be 2nd year.

Hudson: By your reasoning I cannot help but become rich, because there is similarly no such thing as my dying before my first million dollars is in the bank.

Means, if a human being has not died, he ought to be rich. Following this logic are we all millionaires?

Hence, Hudson provides a premise that attacks the conclusion.


(A) showing that a relevantly analogous argument leads to an untenable conclusion - Match

(B) citing a specific example to counter Whittaker’s general claim - -Not a general claim, yet attack a conclusion via premise.

(C) pointing out that Whittaker mistakes a necessary situation for a possible situation - Opposite

My take on this:-[i][/i]
Whittaker: There can be no such thing as the number of medical school students who drop out before their second year, because if they drop out, they never have a second year.
Some example
Hudson: By your reasoning I cannot help but become rich, because there is similarly no such thing as my dying before my first million dollars is in the bank.
Use some another example to describe that his above example doesn't make sense

Hudson responds to Whittaker by
example in similar lines that is more easy to understand
Why?
To give message that his example does not make sense



relevantly analogous argument= example similar or equivalent in some respects
untenable conclusion= not justifiable conclusion. in other words, the conclusion does not make sense

I think by now you would agree that A seems to be correct answer. Let's keep on hold.

strong reason to reject option B is Hudson's specific example doesn't go hand in hand with W's general claim.

Firstly, Whittaker claim is more of an example rather than general claim. His statement is more specific to a scenario.
Secondly, If I need to treat his statement as general claim then I expect Hudson statement to go into more details of medical students domain if Hudson's statement is to be treated as specific example.

So it is preferred to say both statements are more of an analogous example as both examples belongs to different domains.
Thus, I have no reason to stick to B when I am very much convinced with A that matches to my pre-thinking .

Hope it helps:) .

HeyAnshuman0902, I understand you asked bunuel, but sharing my thoughts while you wait for his reply.
B is wrong for 2 reasons -
1. Hudson doesn't really cite a specific example of anything.
2. More importantly, what whitettaker has said is far from a general claim. It is so detailed as he talks about medical students. That too students who are in their first year of medicine. Such a detailed statement cannot be a a general claim IMO.

I hope this helps!

Here's the reasoning I read online:
The correct answer choice is (A)

Whittaker tries to argue that there cannot be a category of people that dropped out of medical school before their second year because if they dropped out they never experience a second year. In response, Hudson follows this same logic to show that there is no category of people who will not become rich because if you die before becoming rich, you never experience it.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Hudson uses the analogy of becoming rich to show that if he uses the same logic as Whittaker, it leads to a preposterous conclusion.

Answer choice (B):Hudson does not cite anything specific that directly counters Whittaker’s claim about second year medical students. Instead he attacks it through analogy.

Answer choice (C): Whittaker does not use necessary/sufficient reasoning in his statement, therefore Hudson cannot point out such a mistake.

Answer choice (D): Whittaker makes a simple statement without ever acting as if it were false.

Answer choice (E): Hudson never claims that Whittaker’s use of medical school students is extreme and unrepresentative.

Please give kudos if helpful