In his new book on

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct91% picked this

   using an attack on the character of the writer of the book as evidence that his person is not competent

   Why this is right

   The structure "using X as evidence that Y" means that X should match the evidence as Y should match the conclusion. Did the evidence contain an attack on the character of the writer of the book? Yes, our author said that R is often arrogant, ambitious, and nasty. And she's definitely using this as evidence, because she prefaces this claim by saying "Add to this that [personal attack] and it becomes clear that [conclusion]." Is the conclusion saying that R isn't competent on matters of scientific substance? Not really, but once we get to the stage of picking "best available answer", we have to live with this. We're accepting "R's book doesn't merit attention from serious professionals" implies that "R isn't competent on matters of scientific substance". That's definitely a bit of a drift, but if we read this more conversationally, it's just saying, "The author uses a personal attack against R as evidence R's book is not accurately presenting important ideas about scientific research."

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

   91%
2. B

   Not Assumed3% picked this

   taking it for granted that an investigator is unlikely to report findings that are contrary to the interests

   The author's argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether investigators are likely to report findings that go against their funding sources. This answer choice seems to be expressing an assumption that R had while writing his book. Our author's argument is, "R's book doesn't merit attention from serious professionals, because R has often shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and plain nasty". The concepts of "investigators / funding sources" are totally nowhere to be found within our author's argument.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   dismissing a scientific theory by giving a biased account

   We wouldn't call R's book "a scientific theory", so the conclusion half of this answer is also wrong. But even if we said, "Dismissing a book on science by giving a biased account of it", we wouldn't be able to say that this author gave a biased account of R's book. She seemed to give a fair account of it, but then she unfairly told people to not read it given that R's character sucks.

   1%
4. D

   Out of Scope: strong conviction2% picked this

   presenting as facts several assertions about the book under review that are based only on strong conviction and would be

   The assertions the author makes about the book are in the first two sentences. We have no grounds for thinking that these assertions are based only on our author's strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify. (Couldn't someone read R's book and verify whether the author's first two assertions are true or not?) This answer is alluding to a semi-famous flaw called Opinion vs. Fact. This answer is saying the author presented opinions/subjectivity as fact, which doesn't match up with anything here.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   failing to distinguish between the criteria of being true and of being sufficiently interesting

   If an author had said, "The claims in R's book are true. Thus, R's book merits attention from serious professionals", then this answer choice would apply. Instead, the argument was, "The writer of this book is often arrogant, ambitious, and nasty. Thus this book does not merit attention from serious professionals."

   3%