Q10 coffee drinkers in office

[ChaimL393]

The author proposes that anyone in the office who drinks coffee should give equal amounts of money to the office coffee fund. True, the author admits, some people in the office would favor a contribution method that is determined by how much coffee an individual consumes. However, the author continues, it would be a better idea for all those in the office who drink coffee to give an equal amount of money to the office's coffee fund.

The flaw in the argument is that the author simply assumes, while providing zero independent evidence, that the course of action being advocated for is superior to the alternatives. The argument is thus circular. By analogy, one could argue that people should always tell the truth because no person ought to ever tell a lie.

(A) Correctly describes the circular nature of the reasoning.
(B) This argument is not about what is or is not true, but rather about an action we should or shouldn't do.
(C) No emotionally charged terms are used to describe the rejected course of action. So this can't be correct.
(D) No double-standard involved in the argumentation. This answer choice mis-describes what occurs in the stimulus and so cannot be correct.
(E) The argument does in fact mention two alternative courses of action. But it explicitly alludes to others as well, and so does not treat the two stated alternatives as the only two possible courses of action. Such answer choices, whereby an element of the stimulus is correctly described, are common on flaw identification questions. The problem is that such answer choices also incorrectly describe some aspect of the stimulus and that is what makes them wrong.