#21 - Words like "employee," "payee," and "detainee" support

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
I don't understand how (D) "narrows the scope" is right. Can you explain that to me?
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
I don't understand how (D) "narrows the scope" is right. Can you explain that to me?
Thanks!

Hello,

It does so by adding this qualifier, "if a word with the ending -ee refers to one party in a two-party transaction, it refers to the party at which the other party’s action is directed." This prevents the generalization about "-ee" from being false, because the qualifier deals with two-party transactions, as opposed to the "one-party transaction" whereby one absents oneself and becomes an "absentee".

David

[silent7706]

Hi,

Can someone please help translate (E) in plain English, and in what scenarios it can be the correct answer? I eliminated it because it says counterexample is spurious but I don't clearly understand what it is saying.

Thanks in advance.

[Adam Tyson]

Yeah, that one hurts my head, silent7706! The "spurious" part is the easiest to deal with - it meas wrong, fake, not legitimate. We can reject this answer, as you did, because the counterexample of "absentee" isn't wrong or illegitimate, but just points out that the generalization needs to be tightened up some.

About the rest of it...

err...

umm...

it's something about changing your perspective.

Okay, it's like saying "if you look at being a detainee not from the point of view of someone who is detained, but from the point of view of someone who another person is detaining, then "absentee" is not a valid counterexample." That sounds to me like a lot of doublespeak nonsense, because those both look to me like the same point of view.

Sorry, that's the best I can do here! I think that answer isn't meant to make sense so much as it is meant to confuse and distract you.

[nicizle]

Hi there,

Can someone explain why A is incorrect? The argument proceeds by providing an example of something, then providing a counterexample that initially seems to weaken the first example, but then clarifies it in a way that renders that counterexample to be harmless to the argument.

I see why D is correct, but I'm unsure of how to eliminate A. The "absentee" example would've been a misanalysis had the argument not clarified the distinction regarding it. How does A not fit the bill for a correct answer? What would A actually look like if it were done in this argument? Is the argument not showing there's a misanalysis of the "absentee" counterexample by clarifying an additional rule that fits?

Please help.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer A looks bad to me because there is no misanalysis of the word "absentee." The author is just reconciling the general rule with the outlier case of that example by saying that the generalization only deals with cases involving two parties, while "absentee" involves only one party. So "absentee" hasn't been analyzed incorrectly; it just doesn't fit into the category of words to which the general rule, now that it has been clarified or narrowed, applies. There is no "misanalysis."