Cotrell is, at best, able

Answer choices

1. A

   Doesn't Ignore16% picked this

   It simply ignores the existence of

   We could definitely say that this author "too hastily rejects the existence of potential counterevidence" (by groundlessly assuming that it's plagiarism, not counterevidence). But we can't say the author ignored its existence. She took it head-on and addressed it, telling us her explanation for of what its existence means (the existence of this supposed counterevidence shows that Cotrell has plagiarized some good articles because he couldn't write them himself).

   16%
2. B

   Doesn't Generalize Not Sampling7% picked this

   It generalizes from atypical

   It would be fair to call these superior articles submitted by Cotrell "atypical occurrences" in the context of this discussion. The author says that Cotrell's articles are numerous but the superior ones are few. However, "generalizing from atypical occurrences" (one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Sampling) would mean that the argument sounded like, "These few articles submitted by Cotrell are of superior quality. Thus, Cotrell's work must usually be of superior quality". Our author clearly wasn't making that move. She was going the opposite way with her conclusion.

   7%
3. C

   Correct66% picked this

   It presupposes what it seeks to

   Why this is right

   This is calling out the Circular Reasoning flaw, in which the author's evidence restates the conclusion or requires it to be true. Common phrasings for Circular: - conclusion is a restatement of a premise - the purported evidence for the conclusion is merely a restatement of that conclusion - assumes what it sets out to prove - presupposes what it seeks to establish - presumes the truth of the conclusion The first two are saying the author "restates the conclusion" in the evidence. The latter three are saying the author "assumes the conclusion" at some point. Oddly, this argument is an example in which the conclusion is literally restated as a "Since" premise. But the two styles of answers are functionally equivalent. Authors are always assuming their premises are true. So if your evidence involves restating your conclusion, then you're assuming the truth of your conclusion.

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

   66%
4. D

   Out of Scope0% picked this

   It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter to which their

   Out of Scope: experts Not Inappropriate Appeal There aren't any experts cited anywhere in the argument, so we can't match this on any descriptive level. This answer describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Inappropriate Appeals (to emotion, or to dubious authority).

   0%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match11% picked this

   It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses

   Since this answer is structured like, infers X from Y we should check whether X matches a conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Does the author conclude "a limit on ability"? Sure. The conclusion says that "Cotrell's ability to write articles is limited to being average quality at best". Does the evidence cite a few isolated lapses in performance (i.e. a few separate cases of poor performance)? No, the evidence cites a few isolated cases of superior performance (and then wishes those away with circular logic).

   11%