Question Type:
ID the Flaw
Stimulus Breakdown:
Boss: You should have included more details.
Employee: But if I included too many details, people wouldn't have paid attention! So you're wrong.
Answer Anticipation:
There's a world of difference between "more details" and "too many details". This relative ("more") vs. absolute ("too many") jump is the flaw of the argument. After all, you can have more chocolate, but you can never have too much.
Correct answer:
(B)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Perception vs. Reality). This argument gives a specific reason that the boss's perception may have been wrong in this instance, not in general.
(B) Boom. This is the distinction that the employee misses.
(C) Wrong flaw (False Choice). The argument treats the level of detail as being a reason for a mind to wander, not the only reason. The employee focuses on it because it was a part of the boss's critique.
(D) Wrong flaw (Bad Generalization). The conclusion is about a single case, so it's not a generalization.
(E) Wrong flaw (Equivocation). Before picking this, you should tell yourself both definitions of "detail". Here, they both seem to relate to the particular information relevant to the presentation.
Takeaway/Pattern:
Flaws in arguments are necessarily related to the language being used in the argument. "more" and "too much" are words that are related to specific logic concepts, so those should be the words you focus on while reading an argument.
#officialexplanation