Commissioner: I have been incorrectly

Answer choices

1. A

   Valid Objection14% picked this

   It takes for granted that the association’s information is not distorted

   This author is stating that the association's information is accurate, so it is assuming that the information is not distorted (by bias or by any other factor). If the commissioner were being thorough with researching her decision, she would cross-reference the association's information with other sources to verify it. Instead, she is just assuming the information is not distorted by bias or any other factor that would skew its accuracy.

   14%
2. B

   Correct59% picked this

   It draws a conclusion about the recommendations of the association from

   Why this is right

   This says that the basis of the commissioner's conclusion was incomplete recollections. But the author's evidence were these two things: - a non-thorough read of the association's report - a conviction that the report's information is accurate - a trust in the association's recommendations, since she agreed with them on a past issue Can we label any of those pieces of evidence as "an incomplete recollection"? That would mean a partial / fuzzy memory, but that doesn't seem to match up with any of the conversation.

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

   59%
3. C

   Valid Objection15% picked this

   It takes for granted that the association’s report is the only direct evidence that needed

   Yes, the author did assume this, because she's acting like the report is sufficient research for making this power plant decision. If we negated this assumption and said, "the association's report is not the only direct evidence that needs to be considered", that would badly weaken the argument. It would make it seem like the commissioner was premature in deciding on the power plant issue, because she only based her decision on the association's report. She didn't consider all the direct evidence that needs to be considered.

   15%
4. D

   Valid Objection3% picked this

   It hastily concludes that the association’s report is accurate, without having studied

   This is pointing out the very sketchy move of saying, "Although I haven't studied X thoroughly, I'm sure the information it contains is accurate". How could you be sure the information it contains is accurate if you haven't studied it thoroughly?

   3%
5. E

   Valid Objection9% picked this

   It takes for granted that agreeing with the association’s past recommendation helps to justify agreeing

   Yes, the author is definitely assuming that "agreeing with the association's recommendation in the past" is strong reason to think that she would agree with their recommendation in the present case. If we negated this assumption it would badly weaken the argument: agreeing with them in the past does not help to justify agreeing with their current recommendation.

   9%