#14 - Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of

[alex.r.berson@gmail.com]

Hi there,

I'm having trouble figuring out why (E) is a worse answer than (A) - Franklin assumes that, if the handwriting matched, it'd be Miller and that seems to be more a flaw, along the lines of a false dilemma (it's not X, so it's Y), than the random information that comes from outside the world of the problem in (A).

Help please!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi alex,

The main problem with Answer E is that this isn't what actually happens in the argument.

Franklin suspects Miller for reasons other than the handwriting and only eliminates Miller because the handwriting does not match Miller's.

Also, for all we know, if the handwriting had in fact been Miller's, that (possibly combined with Miller's apparent motive) may very well have been sufficient evidence to ascertain that Miller was the culprit. (It may not reach "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards, but this isn't a court of law.)

The flaw in this argument is that the fact that the handwriting doesn't match Miller's doesn't fully exonerate Miller (because of the possibility that she had accomplices), but that doesn't mean that if the handwriting did match Miller's, it would be a flaw to ascertain that she is responsible.

[PwrScrVooDoo]

Because the handwriting does not belong to a specific suspect. Therefore, some other person has written this note.
A. There could be a multiple practical jokers running around and writing these notes

[pandapaws]

From an earlier reply: "For Franklin to be wrong, we'd need evidence to show something like 'Miller is involved, but didn't write the note.' Doesn't that require multiple people? So answer choice (A) is the answer."

How is Miller having another person write the note equal to there possibly being more than one practical joker? I thought Miller was the only practical joker and the person who helped him write the note was just an accomplice, not a practical joker themselves.

[Dana D]

Hey panda,

If you're an accomplice, you're part of the same label. Think accomplice in a criminal context - if you're an accomplice to murder, you're charged with murder and get the label of 'murderer.' So here, if you help pull off a practical joke with a co-consiprator, you're also a practical joker.

It seems like you're considering the person who wrote the note only wrote the note, but we don't even know what the practical joke was. Maybe the entirety of the joke is the note itself - in that case, whoever wrote it played a very large role in the joke and is rightfully also a practical joker. It's natural to read an answer choice with an initial conception of what it could mean, but you should practice considering the other possibilities of how to interpret answer choices. Argue with yourself a bit, see if you can poke holes in your own internal logic. This will help, especially on MBT questions, where you won't be able to falsify an answer and therefore you'll know for certain it's the right choice, but it can also help you strengthen your logical thinking throughout the test on questions like these.

Hope that helps!