Advertisement: Each of the Economic

Answer choices

1. A

   Doesn't Weaken4% picked this

   It ignores the possibility that the majority of Economic Merit Prize winners from previous years used a retirement plan

   If the Economic Merit Prize winners from the prior 25 year period all used the Alpha retirement plan, does that hurt the author's argument or conclusion? No, because the author never said that Acme was the only good plan or the best plan, just a good plan.

   4%
2. B

   Doesn't Weaken7% picked this

   It fails to address adequately the possibility that any of several retirement plans would be good enough for, and offer a financially secure

   This is very similar to (A). If there are other plans that would also offer the Economic Merit Prize winners a secure future, does that hurt the author's argument or conclusion? No, because the author never said that Acme was the only good plan or the best plan, just a good plan. The existence of other good plans doesn't weaken the claim that Acme is a good plan.

   7%
3. C

   Didn't Happen21% picked this

   It appeals to the fact that supposed experts have endorsed the argument’s main conclusion, rather than appealing to

   The experts (supposedly) would endorse or recognize that ACME is good for them, but nothing in the paragraph says that the Economic Merit Prize winners endorse the idea that ACME is probably a good plan for anyone with similar retirement needs. So the supposed experts did not ever endorse the main conclusion.

   21%
4. D

   Correct52% picked this

   It takes for granted that some winners of the Economic Merit Prize have deliberately selected the Acme retirement plan, rather than having had it

   Why this is right

   Is the author assuming that some of the EMP's deliberately selected ACME rather than having their bosses choose it for them? Yes. The author goes from "they're covered by Acme" to "they clearly recognize that Acme offers them a secure future". He's assuming, in making that move, that they chose to be covered by Acme. If we negated the assumption this answer is describing, it would mean that "none of the EMP winners picked Acme for themselves; they all had it assigned to them by their employers". That would badly weaken the argument (specifically the move from the Premise to the Intermediate Conclusion). The author is trying to make it seem like the smartest economists in the world looked around at all the retirement plans, and they all decided on Acme, because they thought it would provide them a financially secure future. If instead they are just all assigned this retirement plan, they might find it to be a crappy plan, but it is what it is — if that's the retirement plan their company uses, then they're on it anyway.

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

   52%
5. E

   Too Strong16% picked this

   It presumes, without providing justification, that each of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement plan needs that are identical to the

   The author doesn't need to assume that every single one of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement needs that are identical to the audience's needs. The conclusion is just saying that "if you have similar needs, the Acme plan will probably be a good one".

   16%