- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:07 pm
#84795
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
As with all Flaw in the Reasoning questions, you must closely examine the relationship between
the premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the editorial concludes that the advice of the
economic advisor is untrustworthy and “the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes
without a significant decrease in government services.” What support is offered for this position?
Is a discussion of taxation issues presented? Is a discussion of the cost of government service
provided? Is the position of the economic advisor dissected? No. According to the editorial, the only
reason for ignoring the economic advisor’s advice is that the advisor was convicted in his youth of
embezzlement. This fact has no bearing on the argument made by the advisor, and focuses instead
on attacking the person making the argument. This is a classic Source or ad hominem argument, and
you should immediately seek an answer choice that reflects this fact.
Answer choice (A): A proposal is not rejected in the stimulus; rather, a goal is advocated by the
advisor and then the author questions whether that goal can be met by examining the background of
the advisor. There is no discussion of a “particular implementation” that is likely to fail.
Answer choice (B): This answer fails the Fact Test because there is no discussion of “what could
happen otherwise” and no discussion of people’s fears.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The answer is a perfect description of a Source
argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer describes an evidence error in which a lack of evidence for a
position is considered to hurt the claim. In the argument, the author improperly used evidence about
the advisor, and this mistake is the error in the argument. Even though this introduced a flaw into the
argument, from the author’s perspective this was an attempt to use evidence against a position to hurt
the position. The editorial did not state or indicate that there was a lack of evidence when forming the
conclusion. Put simply, the editor thought he had a reason that undermined the claim; no argument
was made that there was a lack of evidence.
Answer choice (E): This answer describes Circular Reasoning. But, because the argument in the
stimulus gives reasons for its position (albeit weak ones), the argument is not circular.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
As with all Flaw in the Reasoning questions, you must closely examine the relationship between
the premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the editorial concludes that the advice of the
economic advisor is untrustworthy and “the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes
without a significant decrease in government services.” What support is offered for this position?
Is a discussion of taxation issues presented? Is a discussion of the cost of government service
provided? Is the position of the economic advisor dissected? No. According to the editorial, the only
reason for ignoring the economic advisor’s advice is that the advisor was convicted in his youth of
embezzlement. This fact has no bearing on the argument made by the advisor, and focuses instead
on attacking the person making the argument. This is a classic Source or ad hominem argument, and
you should immediately seek an answer choice that reflects this fact.
Answer choice (A): A proposal is not rejected in the stimulus; rather, a goal is advocated by the
advisor and then the author questions whether that goal can be met by examining the background of
the advisor. There is no discussion of a “particular implementation” that is likely to fail.
Answer choice (B): This answer fails the Fact Test because there is no discussion of “what could
happen otherwise” and no discussion of people’s fears.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The answer is a perfect description of a Source
argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer describes an evidence error in which a lack of evidence for a
position is considered to hurt the claim. In the argument, the author improperly used evidence about
the advisor, and this mistake is the error in the argument. Even though this introduced a flaw into the
argument, from the author’s perspective this was an attempt to use evidence against a position to hurt
the position. The editorial did not state or indicate that there was a lack of evidence when forming the
conclusion. Put simply, the editor thought he had a reason that undermined the claim; no argument
was made that there was a lack of evidence.
Answer choice (E): This answer describes Circular Reasoning. But, because the argument in the
stimulus gives reasons for its position (albeit weak ones), the argument is not circular.