81 LR Two Question 21
- « 81 LR Two Question 20
- 3204 of 3815
- 81 LR Two Question 22 »
Comments

Hey D -
Here the general claim that the answer refers to is implicit (wasn't said in our argument). I haven't seen this before in method questions. Is this question an exception or is this something we should start anticipating. I didn't think we could refer to implicit general claims in method questions. Sneaky.

Well, the argument explicitly challenges a general claim in the first sentence. This explicit challenge is essentially the same as the argument that ascribes and then refutes a position.
I do think your impulse is correct that we wouldn't like (C) if the argument had not explicitly challenged the general claim, though!

Okay I see. So, If I run into this again - structurally I will know we are/could be arguing against the opposite of the conclusion because the argument doesn't present any counter-evidence to the conclusion. There is no ascription and no counter-evidence, everything is moving in the same direction. Correct?

"Arguing against the opposite of the conclusion" is perhaps the most creative version I've ever seen of "Making an argument."
When the conclusion is "[This general claim] is true," then the argument is working toward a general claim. When the conclusion is instead "[This general claim] is not always true," then the argument is working against a general claim.