Editorial: Clearly, during the past

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: responsible0% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the government is at least partly responsible for the improvement

   When a Flaw answer begins with presumes / takes for granted, then we treat the idea that follows like Necessary Assumption. Did the author have to assume that the government was partly responsible for the improvement in employment? Nope. If we negate this and say, "Hey, author -- the government isn't responsible at all for the improvement in the employment situation", that wouldn't hurt the author. She'd say, "Cool, I never said anything about the government. I just said the unemployment situation has improved".

   0%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   relies on data from a period that is too short to justify an inference about

   This answer accuses the conclusion (inference) of being about a general trend, but the conclusion is only about the 2 year period for which we have data. We have data about the last 2 years. The conclusion is only making a claim about what happened "during that period".

   3%
3. C

   Correct95% picked this

   fails to take into account the possibility that many unemployed workers who still desire jobs may have

   Why this is right

   When a Flaw answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, then we treat the idea that follows like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author -- a bunch of unemployed workers who still want a job just stopped looking for jobs." Yes, because that provides an Alternate Explanation for why the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has decreased. The author is assuming that if that number went down, it's because a bunch of those people got jobs (hence, "the unemployment situation is improving"). This answer is posing the objection that maybe the number went down because a bunch of those people just gave up looking for jobs.

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

   95%
4. D

   Trap0% picked this

   fails to take into account that the sorts of governmental efforts that reduce unemployment may not be effective

   Not an Objection Out of Scope: govt. / high-paying When a Flaw answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, then we treat the idea that follows like Weaken. Does it hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author -- when the government makes an effort to reduce unemployment, it doesn't necessarily create more high-paying jobs"? No, because the argument wasn't talking about the government or about the level of pay.

   0%
5. E

   Out of Scope: other indicators1% picked this

   ignores other economic indicators, which may not have improved during the

   Other economic indicators are irrelevant, since the author's conclusion is only about unemployment. If she had looked at shrinking unemployment numbers and concluded, "Hence, the economy is improving", then we could complain that there are other aspects of the economy that need to be considered. But to judge the truth value of her conclusion about "unemployment", we only need to look at unemployment.

   1%