A television manufacturing plant has

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   ignores the possibility that if 10 workers were fired, each of the remaining workers would produce

   When we see fails to consider / ignores the possibility we can ask, "if true, would this weaken?" But in order for us to weaken, we need to be able to argue that firing 10 workers would lead to a loss in production. This is saying that if we fired 10 workers, we might even have a boost in production.

   1%
2. B

   Correct56% picked this

   fails to show that the absentee rate would drop if 10

   Why this is right

   Since there are 1000 employees, but an average of 10 are out, then there's really an average of 990 employees present every day. The author thinks, "Well on days when we have exactly 990, our production is the same. So let's fire 10 people." But assuming the absentee rate will continue to be about the same, the plant will now be operating with an average of 980 employees each day. The author hasn't provided any info about whether the plant has any loss of production when it's at 980 employees. If we're going to be firing 10 employees, then we should be comparing production rates based on an average of 990 present (currently) to an average of 980 present (after the 10 are fired). Since the author is comparing 990 (the average number who presently show up) to 990 (total employees, once the 10 are fired), the author is acting like in this new Plan World, we suddenly don't have to worry about the average of 10 who are out every day. Hence, this answer is saying, "Yo, author, you've never established that the -10 / day average will go away, but you're acting like after we fire 10 workers, we'll be operating just as we are now, when 10 of 1000 workers are absent."

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

   56%
3. C

   Too Strong: only when13% picked this

   takes for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained only when no more than the average

   This answer accuses the author of thinking such things as, "on days when exactly 11 workers are absent, the normal rate of production is never attained". That's way too extreme. It wouldn't hurt the author at all if we said, "Some days, 11 people are out and the plant still produces at the normal rate". This answer is actually just doing some inverted logic of the 2nd sentence. 2nd sentence: if exactly 10 are absent ? normal rate This answer: if more than 10 absent ? normal rate

   13%
4. D

   Not a Strong Objection12% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that certain workers are crucial to the production

   When we see answers starting with fails to consider / ignores the possibility we can ask, "if true, would this weaken?" Can we say, "Yo, author — certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions", and hurt her argument? Not really. It seems like she would just say, "Yes, I agree. But apparently not all 1000 are crucial, because on days when only 990 are there, the plant produces at its normal rate." To be closer to the objection we were making in our evaluation, this would have to sound more like (D) overlooks the possibility that the workers who are most likely to be fired are way more productive than the workers who are usually absent on days when exactly 10 workers are absent. To be an objection, it needs to get at the comparison -- you'd have a less productive 990 once 10 were fired than you had when it was 990 because 10 were absent.

   12%
5. E

   Too Strong: not affected19% picked this

   takes for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers

   This author isn't saying something crazy like, "The number of workers employed by the plant has no affect on its rate of production". No one would want to argue that ... "Yes ... whether it's 3 employees or 3 million employees. The rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed." The author is assuming that the rate of production is not affected at this plant when it goes from a total of 1000 to 990 workers. We can't turn that assumption into the huge, sweeping claim being made in this answer choice. One of the most popular trap answer patterns in Flaw answer choices is Extreme Assumptions. When you see an answer begin with takes for granted presumes, w/o providing, justification fails to establish beware stuff that sounds more extreme than anything the author needed to assume.

   19%