Political commentators see recent

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Equivocation1% picked this

   The term “policies” is used ambiguously in

   This is not the famous Equivocation flaw. The term policies is used consistently. Our objection to the author is that he thinks that whatever most people believe is true, is true. We weren't complaining that the definition of policies was ambiguous or shifting.

   1%
2. B

   Never a Flaw0% picked this

   The political commentators discussed in the passage are

   It's true that the specific commentators are not named, but that's not a problem with someone's reasoning. This would never be a correct answer. The test isn't ever asking us to complain that we lack a specific number, a specific measurement, a precise definition, or names of individuals. It's not about factual details like that. It's about a reasoning move from one idea to another. If we were told that the commentators were Bobby and Lisa, would that make any difference to how we perceived the argument?

   0%
3. C

   Correct88% picked this

   A claim is inferred to be false merely because a majority of people believe it

   Why this is right

   The political commentators claimed, "the government's policies toward X are appeasement". The author's conclusion (inference) is, "this view is fundamentally mistaken", which is synonymous with "this claim is false". The author's evidence is, "most people disagree with the commentators", which is synonymous with "a majority of people believe their claim is false".

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

   88%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular4% picked this

   The claim that the political commentators are mistaken is both a premise and a conclusion

   Saying that the premise is a restatement of the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion means that we're accusing the argument of being Circular. Circular arguments don't really have any evidence offered. They just say, "Chocolate is the best, because nothing beats chocolate." But this argument had evidence. It was crappy evidence, but it was evidence. The author pointed to opinion polls as evidence to back up her view that the commentators are wrong. A circular argument would have sounded like, "This view is fundamentally mistaken, for there's no way we should be calling these recent policies appeasement."

   4%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Part v. Whole7% picked this

   It is assumed that what is true of persons individually is true of a country

   This answer describes the famous Part vs. Whole flaw. It is saying that the premise said that "individuals in this country believe A" and that the conclusion then said, "thus the whole country believes A". Instead the argument was more like, "most people believe the commentators are wrong" "thus, the commentators are wrong"

   7%