Director of Ace Manufacturing Company:

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct86% picked this

   failing to distinguish two distinct senses of a

   Why this is right

   This is describing the Equivocation flaw. The argument is failing to distinguish between the positive sense of "fully exploiting (utilizing) resources" and the negative sense of pledging to "avoid exploiting (unfairly treating) workers". Fully utilizing resources (assigning staff so that they are doing what they like to do and what they do well) doesn't feel like unfairly treating workers.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   86%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   attempting to defend an action on the ground that it is

   Bad Conclusion Match: defend Bad Evidence Match: frequently "Attempting to X on the ground that Y" means that X is the Conclusion and Y is the evidence. The author's conclusion seems to be shooting down the consultant's action, not defending an action. And the evidence has nothing to do with citing how frequently exploitation occurs.

   2%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   defining a term by pointing to an atypical example of something to which

   Bad Conclusion Match: define term Bad Evidence Match: atypical example "Doing X by doing Y" means that X is the Conclusion and Y is the evidence. The author's conclusion seems to be shooting down the consultant's action, not defining a term. And the evidence has nothing to do with citing any atypical example. The evidence just cites the company's commitment.

   9%
4. D

   Not Circular3% picked this

   drawing a conclusion that simply restates one of the premises of

   This answer describes one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the premise restates or assumes the conclusion. This answer is almost always wrong. The conclusion says "implementing this recommendation would violate our policy". The evidence says "this company has a policy not to exploit workers". The 2nd claim is not restating the 1st claim.

   3%
5. E

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   calling something by a less offensive term than the term that is usually used to

   Out of Scope: less offensive term Opposite (if anything) If anything, the author is calling something by a more offensive term than what would usually be used to name that thing. The author is saying that "assigning staff to jobs they like to do and are good at doing" would be exploiting these workers. Most people would usually not use such a negative label for having workers do what they like to do and do well.

   1%