Of the two proposals for solving

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Match2% picked this

   Surely Centreville should oppose adoption of the regional planning commission’s new plan since it is not in Centreville’s interest, even though it might be

   This argument says Centreville should oppose the plan because the plan is not in Centreville's interest. There's no claim about who is supporting or opposing the plan, and no inference from the bad motives of a sponsor. The original argument's flaw is "the principal supporter is self-interested, so the plan is bad" — this answer doesn't do that.

   2%
2. B

   Bad Match4% picked this

   The school board should support the plan for the new high school since this plan was recommended by the well-qualified consultants whom the

   This argument supports a plan because of the credentials of the consultants who recommended it. That's the opposite move from the original — endorsing a plan based on the sponsor's expertise, not rejecting one based on the sponsor's self-interest. Different structure.

   4%
3. C

   Bad Match34% picked this

   Of the two budget proposals, the mayor’s is clearly preferable to the city council’s, since the mayor’s budget addresses the needs of the city

   This argument compares the two budget proposals on their content — the mayor's "addresses the needs of the city as a whole," whereas the city council is "protecting special interests." It evaluates what each proposal actually does, not the motives of an outside backer. The original argument never describes what Chen's or Ripley's plan actually proposes; it argues entirely from the backer's motives. Different structure.

   34%
4. D

   Bad Match6% picked this

   Nomura is clearly a better candidate for college president than Miller, since Nomura has the support of the three deans who best understand the

   This argument endorses Nomura because of the support of qualified deans (the people who best understand the job). It's an appeal to the expertise of the supporters, not an attack on the self-interest of the opposition. The original argument's move is "the principal supporter of the rejected option is self-interested" — this answer's move is "the supporters of the chosen option are well-positioned to judge." Different.

   6%
5. E

   Correct54% picked this

   The planned light-rail system will clearly serve suburban areas well, since its main opponent is the city government, which has always ignored the needs

   Why this is right

   This is the parallel. The argument concludes that the light-rail system will serve the suburbs well, based entirely on the fact that its main opponent — the city government — has a track record of self-interested behavior (ignoring the suburbs, protecting only the city). That mirrors the original exactly: rather than evaluating the plan on its merits, the argument judges it by the motives of a self-interested actor on the other side. (The original points to the principal supporter; this points to the principal opponent — but in both cases, "this self-interested party is on side X, therefore the plan on side Y is best for the public" is the underlying flawed move.)

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

   54%