The proposed coal-burning electric

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope6% picked this

   The competing electricity producers would stand to lose large amounts of revenue from the building of

   Out of Scope: lose large amounts of $ Our author is certainly suspicious of the validity of arguments coming from competitors, but we don't specifically know why she's suspicious. We can't say she's definitely assuming they would stand to lose large amounts of revenue.

   6%
2. B

   Backwards Logic6% picked this

   If a person’s arguments against a proposal are defective, then that person has a vested interest in seeing that

   We are interested in any answer that says competitor said not good it (vested interest) ? argument But this answer gives us that backwards: Not good argument ? Vested Interest

   6%
3. C

   Out of Scope: who's pleased more2% picked this

   Approval of the coal-burning electric plant would please coal suppliers more than disapproval would please suppliers of fuel

   This is talking about the ramifications of approving the plant. That's beyond the scope of the argument. This author is just trying to get us to "we should approve". She hasn't staked any opinion on what happens after that.

   2%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match6% picked this

   If good arguments are presented for a proposal, then that proposal

   Our author assumes this: no good arguments against ? should be approved This answer says this: good arguments in favor ? should be approved We were never told whether there are / aren't good arguments in favor of the proposal, so that's out of scope.

   6%
5. E

   Correct81% picked this

   Arguments made by those who have a vested interest in the outcome of a proposal

   Why this is right

   This tests the link from Premise to Intermediate Conclusion. arguments made by those with vested ? not good arguments interest in outcome Our author definitely made this move in saying, "No good arguments have been made against; after all, all arguments against have come from a competitor." That clearly reflects an assumption that "if an argument comes from a competitor, it's bad". If we negated this answer, it would turn into an Objection (as correct answers are supposed to): Sometimes arguments made by those with a vested interest are good arguments!

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

   81%