In any question involving a flawed argument, I am really focused on asking myself whether there is a concept in the conclusion that wasn’t mentioned in the premises. This happens a LOT and will point you right to the flaw. Now it is a little tricky in this one, because the word “articulate” does come up in that first sentence, but that’s just background– it’s just telling us what some other people think, it’s not part of the author’s support.

If I’m analyzing this argument, my inner monologue goes like this:

1. What is the author trying to prove? Having a large vocabulary is a hindrance to being articulate.

2. Why does the author think that? Because if you have a large vocabulary, you don’t engage in creative linguistic self-expression when words seem inadequate.

3. What’s wrong with that?”Oh– well this author is assuming that there is a connection between having this ability to be creative when words are inadequate and being articulate.”

So that’s what I’m looking for among my answer choices. Honestly, answer choice E isn’t even on my radar because it doesn’t get at the concept “articulate.” It just doesn’t matter whether people with large vocabularies sometimes don’t have suitable words available or not- all that matters is that they haven’t developed this skill that the author seems to think is necessary for being articulate. It’s not clear whether the author would agree with answer E or not– maybe the author thinks they seldom (not often, as the answer says) have this issue, and that’s precisely why they never developed creative linguistic self-expression.