- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8915
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:00 am
#34925
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This stimulus deals with a university president’s speech and a critique from a known detractor,
Professor Riley, who says that the speech was inflammatory and thus inappropriate. Because of the
poor relationship between Riley and the president, the author of the stimulus says that Riley’s word
is not sufficient to conclude that the speech was actually inflammatory. Without outside, independent
verification that the speech was, in fact, inflammatory, the author concludes that the speech could
not have been inappropriate.
While the author might have a valid concern regarding the long-standing feud between the professor
and the president, the issue is not just about whether or not the speech was inflammatory. The
professor felt that the speech’s inflammatory nature was the reason that it was inappropriate; even if
the speech was not inflammatory, however, it still could have been inappropriate for any number of
reasons.
The stimulus is followed by a Flaw in the Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice
will likely point out that the speech could have been inappropriate, even if it was not in fact
inflammatory.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed, the author appears to believe
that if the speech was not inflammatory, there is no way that it could have been inappropriate. It is
entirely possible that the professor was wrong, and that the speech was not at all inflammatory, but it
could have been inappropriate in other ways.
Answer choice (B): The author does not believe that the professor’s opinion is to be trusted
regarding the president’s speech, and that unless there happens to be outside verification, it is not
true that the speech was inflammatory. If this is the case, then it is irrelevant that some inflammatory
speeches are appropriate for some audiences, as this choice provides, because the author’s assertion
is that the speech was not inflammatory.
Answer choice (C): The author does not indicate favoritism based on the president’s standing.
Rather, the author thinks that Professor Riley’s characterization of the speech was colored by their
long-standing feud, so the assertion that the speech was inflammatory cannot be trusted. Since this
choice does not describe the flaw in the stimulus, it can be ruled out of contention.
Answer choice (D): Riley doesn’t necessarily have anything to gain from the speech’s having been
inflammatory and inappropriate, and the author doesn’t exactly conclude that Riley’s claim is
false. Rather, the author says that unless there is some independent verification that the speech was
inflammatory, it is not true that it was inappropriate. Since this choice is inaccurate on more than one
count, it cannot be the accurate characterization of the flaw in the author’s reasoning.
Answer choice (E): The author does not need to consider how well founded the professor’s
animosity toward the president is, because that is not the point; the author’s point is that the longstanding feud provides reason to doubt Riley’s characterization of the speech as inflammatory.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This stimulus deals with a university president’s speech and a critique from a known detractor,
Professor Riley, who says that the speech was inflammatory and thus inappropriate. Because of the
poor relationship between Riley and the president, the author of the stimulus says that Riley’s word
is not sufficient to conclude that the speech was actually inflammatory. Without outside, independent
verification that the speech was, in fact, inflammatory, the author concludes that the speech could
not have been inappropriate.
While the author might have a valid concern regarding the long-standing feud between the professor
and the president, the issue is not just about whether or not the speech was inflammatory. The
professor felt that the speech’s inflammatory nature was the reason that it was inappropriate; even if
the speech was not inflammatory, however, it still could have been inappropriate for any number of
reasons.
The stimulus is followed by a Flaw in the Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice
will likely point out that the speech could have been inappropriate, even if it was not in fact
inflammatory.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed, the author appears to believe
that if the speech was not inflammatory, there is no way that it could have been inappropriate. It is
entirely possible that the professor was wrong, and that the speech was not at all inflammatory, but it
could have been inappropriate in other ways.
Answer choice (B): The author does not believe that the professor’s opinion is to be trusted
regarding the president’s speech, and that unless there happens to be outside verification, it is not
true that the speech was inflammatory. If this is the case, then it is irrelevant that some inflammatory
speeches are appropriate for some audiences, as this choice provides, because the author’s assertion
is that the speech was not inflammatory.
Answer choice (C): The author does not indicate favoritism based on the president’s standing.
Rather, the author thinks that Professor Riley’s characterization of the speech was colored by their
long-standing feud, so the assertion that the speech was inflammatory cannot be trusted. Since this
choice does not describe the flaw in the stimulus, it can be ruled out of contention.
Answer choice (D): Riley doesn’t necessarily have anything to gain from the speech’s having been
inflammatory and inappropriate, and the author doesn’t exactly conclude that Riley’s claim is
false. Rather, the author says that unless there is some independent verification that the speech was
inflammatory, it is not true that it was inappropriate. Since this choice is inaccurate on more than one
count, it cannot be the accurate characterization of the flaw in the author’s reasoning.
Answer choice (E): The author does not need to consider how well founded the professor’s
animosity toward the president is, because that is not the point; the author’s point is that the longstanding feud provides reason to doubt Riley’s characterization of the speech as inflammatory.
Independent reasons to judge inflammatory is correct answer A simply the contrapositive of this? 
inflammatory 