It is easy to see

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct65% picked this

   the argument fails to show that corruption is not limited to

   Why this is right

   When an answer says that an author "fails to establish / show _____ " it means that they needed to show that thing for their argument to be persuasive. It basically calls out a Necessary Assumption. Is our author assuming that corruption is not limited to W's staff? Definitely. She thinks that it extends to the whole board of directors, since she concludes that the board is full of corruption. If we negate this assumption, and say "Yo, author, the corruption is limited to W's staff", that would be a huge objection to the idea that whole board is corrupt and should be replaced.

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

   65%
2. B

   Not a Strong Objection1% picked this

   the argument fails to show that Wagston’s staff engaged in any bribery other than bribery

   If we were trying to argue that the board isn't full of corruption, can we say, "Hey, W's staff members only did one form of bribery!" That's not much of an objection. Sure fewer forms of bribery are less corrupt than more forms, but one form of bribery is still plenty corrupt. Plus there could be other forms of corruption in addition to bribery. We don't need to believe there are multiple cases of bribery in order to believe there's corruption on the board.

   1%
3. C

   Not a Flaw11% picked this

   the argument fails to specify the relation between bribery

   We know that bribery is corrupt. We don't need that explained for us. That's not the reasoning problem: "Well you're assuming that bribery is corrupt!" (although in today's news universe, maybe we do need to state that)

   11%
4. D

   Too Strong: "all"19% picked this

   the argument presumes without giving justification that all of Wagston’s staff have

   We don't need the author to assume that every single person on W's staff is corrupt. If 99% of them are corrupt, that's still plenty corrupt. Also, the argument is more about whether the board is full of corruption than whether W's staff is full of corruption.

   19%
5. E

   Not Ad Hominem4% picked this

   the argument attempts to deflect attention away from substantive issues by attacking the character

   The substantive issue here is the character of the board. This answer choice describes the famous flaw of Ad Hominem, but the author isn't invalidating someone's argument because they have an ulterior motive or because of their contrary past behavior. He's impugning the character of the board as his conclusion, and his evidence is about the character of some staff members of the board.

   4%