#18 - Coach: Our team has often been criticized for our

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

The coach argues that his team engages in professional behavior because the behavior is less extreme than that of professionals in the sport.

The coach needs to reference a dictionary, because "professional" in the sense of behavior clearly and only refers to an ethic of respect and decency, whereas "professional" in the sense of a sports figure refers to Terrell Owens.

Since you are asked to identify the flaw in the reasoning, you should focus on the fact that the coach confuses senses of the word "professional."

Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect, because it is not clear that the coach actually understands what he is talking about. Does he know that critics are criticizing his team's ethics? In that case, he seems to defend his team. Does he fail to understand the word "professional?" In that case, this choice is not even relevant.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Whether the coach misinterprets the claim deliberately or out of ignorance, the coach still misinterprets the claim when he treats the behavioral sense of "professional" as identical to the Terrell Owens sense of "professional."

Answer choice (C): Easy elimination strategy: you should recognize the "key term" error and eliminate this "generalization" choice as off target.

Longer explanation: You should not assume that the coach's main flaw is that he generalizes acceptable behavior too quickly from one level of the sport to the next. Even if he has done that, he still makes the assumption that the behavior of professional players (TO) is identical to professional behavior (good sportsmanship). First, it is not clear that the coach engages in a flawed generalization; second, if you select this response you must still acknowledge answer choice (B), so this response is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The coach does not shift blame; the coach acts as if all the behavior he discusses is perfectly acceptable and blameless.

Answer choice (E): Even though I have used an infamous player to characterize that professional players do not always engage in professional behavior, you should not assume that the coach references a few professional players to draw his conclusions about the behavior of all professionals, so this choice is wrong. Even if you did make that assumption, you should still not choose this response, as the coach would still need to equate the senses of "professional" to make his leap from professional players to professional behavior.

[manchas]

Hello and thanks in advance for you help. I'm clear on why (B) is the correct answer. Just wanted to get more clarity on the wrongness of (C). The coach does generalize between different levels of the sport, doesn't he? And as you alluded to, even if he does, generalizing is not - in and of itself - necessarily a flaw, is it??? Can you give me an example of a generalization that would be flawed?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi M,

Generalizing usually becomes an error when a speaker overgeneralizes — that is, when a speaker uses a small or limited amount of information to make a sweeping claim.

Here is an example we can make using the same topic as question #18: I've been to a few Boston Red Sox games and a number of New England Patriots game this past year. At each of those games the fans hurled insults at the opposing teams and celebrated their opponents' failures. So North American sports fans agree that disrespecting opponents is acceptable behavior.

I am generalizing in this case by moving from evidence of two sports teams (located in the same area) to a conclusion about sports fans across an entire continent. That should signal to you that I may want to expand the scope of my evidence before I make statements about the attitudes that fans hold in Minnesota, Montreal, and Mexico City.

It may be the case that sports fans in Massachusetts are exceptionally rowdy or rude. Such a certain and broad conclusion will be flawed due to the overgeneralization.

[cascott15]

I may be alone here, but I’m not sure answer choice B fully captures what the test writers intended for it to say. The coach can accept that the critics say his/her team’s behavior is inappropriate and rebut that claim by pointing to the behavior of professional athletes. Much in the same way any other professional might justify their behavior by citing a person of authority. It’s not necessarily true that he’s misinterpreting their criticism.

Just my two cents.

[Claire Horan]

Hi cascott15,

I take your point, but the question doesn't require that it to be "necessarily true" that the coach is misinterpreting the criticism. The question stem asks test-takers to identify the choice that best explains how the argument is "most vulnerable." Even if you think the coach's argument is a good one, you can still identify the best critique of his comments. Since none of the other choices identify a weakness in his argument, even your interpretation of the coach's comments would lead to the right answer.

Here's another way to think about it. First, ask whether each answer choice arguably describes the coach's argument. If you did this, I think you would find that A represents the opposite of the coach's opinion, C does not apply to the coach's argument because we don't know what level the team is on, D is wrong because the coach doesn't shift blame to anyone, and E is wrong because there is no basis for characterizing the enthusiastic behavior as limited to a few players. B at least describes something close to the coach's comments because the coach and the critics disagree about what kind of behavior is unprofessional.

The takeaway--these questions are called "Flaw in the Reasoning" as a convenient shorthand, but you can think of them more broadly when you don't think the flaw is a serious one--you can think of the question type as asking for the answer choice that describes the argument's biggest weakness. Good luck with your studies!

[simonsap]

"we've been criticized for our enthusiasm... this behaviour is hardly unprofessional, AS OUR CRITICS HAVE CLAIMED."

The coach explicitly implies that critics have claimed that the team is unprofessional.

The stimulus is designed to mislead you.
Process of elimination is your best bet. A, D, E are clearly wrong choices. To eliminate C you have check if there is any generalization from one level to another -- not necessarily; the team could already be playing at a professional level.

Stupid and tricky on purpose; meant to deceive.