Mullen has proposed to raise

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match8% picked this

   Do not vote for Smith’s proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith

   In this argument, Smith's suggestion would be a self-interested one. He is a working parent and his proposal would help working parents. In the original argument, Mullen suggested raising taxes on the rich, which goes against his self-interest, since he apparently got rich over the past decade.

   8%
2. B

   Correct73% picked this

   Do not put any credence in Dr. Han’s recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr.

   Why this is right

   Just like in the original, someone is suggesting something: - let's ban smoking in public places - let's raise taxes on the rich The author is dismissing this idea: - Do not put any credence into this proposal - This proposal does not deserve our consideration And the premise is that the proposal conflicts with the person who proposed it: - Dr. H is a smoker - Mullen is a rich person

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

   73%
3. C

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match4% picked this

   The previous witness’s testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery

   In this argument, we don't have one person suggesting / proposing something. So the conclusion isn't rejecting a suggestion / proposal. It's just rejecting testimony. And the grounds for it isn't that the proposal would go against the self-interest of the person proposing it. Rather the grounds for dismissing the testimony is simply that this person is a lying, fraudulent person we shouldn't trust.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match15% picked this

   Board member Timm’s proposal to raise the salaries of the company’s middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm’s daughter is a

   In this argument, Timm's proposal would be a self-interested one. His daughter is a middle manager and his proposal would raise the salaries of middle managers. In the original argument, Mullen suggested raising taxes on the rich, which goes against his self-interest, since he apparently got rich over the past decade.

   15%
5. E

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Dr. Wasow’s analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has

   In this argument, we don't have one person suggesting / proposing something. So the conclusion isn't rejecting a suggestion / proposal. It's just rejecting an analysis. And the grounds for it isn't that the proposal would go against the self-interest of the person proposing it. Rather the grounds for dismissing the analysis is simply that this person doesn't have any past expertise in this field.

   1%