Britain is now rabies free.

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   trying to undermine support for a certain policy by pointing out that factors other than the policy itself could account for the

   The author is saying that a policy will fail to achieve a certain effect. She isn't trying to undermine support for the policy. There were no results that were attributed to this plan; there was only the intent of achieving certain results (preventing widespread outbreaks of rabies).

   6%
2. B

   Out of Scope: objection is irrelevant1% picked this

   raising a possible objection to a certain policy in order to show that the objection is in fact irrelevant to the particular situation

   The author does raise a possible objection to a certain policy: "This policy of quarantining imported domesticated animals will not forever prevent outbreaks, because it doesn't stop wild bats from coming and spreading rabies". The author is never trying to show that the objection is irrelevant. The author totally thinks it's relevant. It's her objection!

   1%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match0% picked this

   providing evidence that because the officials charged with enforcing a certain policy often fail to perform their duty that policy is

   The author is kind of arguing that a policy is sure to have little effect, because she's saying this policy won't prevent outbreaks in the long term. But the evidence has nothing to do with saying that enforcement officials fail to perform their duty. It's that even if officials perfectly enforce the quarantine on imported pets, that policy won't prevent rabies that comes from wild bats flying over the English channel from the rest of Europe.

   0%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match4% picked this

   showing that because a certain policy is not universally adopted that policy cannot accomplish what it

   The author is kind of arguing that a policy cannot accomplish what it was designed to do, because she's saying this policy won't prevent outbreaks in the long term. But the evidence has nothing to do with saying that this quarantining policy won't be universally adopted. The premise is just saying that the policy won't prevent rabies that comes from wild bats flying over the English channel from the rest of Europe.

   4%
5. E

   Correct88% picked this

   arguing that a certain policy is bound to fail because an event that is likely to defeat the aim of the policy

   Why this is right

   The author's conclusion does basically say that a policy is bound to fail, because she's saying this quarantining policy will fail to prevent rabies outbreaks in the long term. And the evidence is talking about an event (wild bats flying in from continental Europe) that is likely to defeat the aim of the policy (bats are very susceptible to rabies) that falls outside the policy's influence (the policy is a quarantine and wild bats cannot be quarantined).

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

   88%