Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct85% picked this

   treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report’s

   Why this is right

   This describes the relationship between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion.

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

   85%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw - Sampling3% picked this

   draws a conclusion based solely on an unrepresentative sample of

   The evidence does not include a sample of Ocksenfrey’s products. This is just Famous Flaw bait, since Sampling is one of the 10 famous flaws.

   3%
3. C

   Bad Objection3% picked this

   fails to take into account the possibility that Ocksenfrey has just as much motivation to create negative publicity for Danto as Danto has

   Since this has the "fails to consider / overlooks possibility" opener, we can ask ourselves if this would weaken the argument. Does it the hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author, Ocks has just as much motivation to smear Danto as Danto does to smear Ocks"? No. The author could just say, "Sure I agree. We shouldn't trust what bad things Danto says about Ocks, and we shouldn't trust what bad things Ocks says about Danto."

   3%
4. D

   Bad Assumption: Irrelevant Comparison5% picked this

   fails to provide evidence that Danto Foods’ prepackaged meals are not more nutritious

   "takes for granted / fails to establish / fails to provide evidence" means we're hearing something the argument supposedly needed to assume. Did the argument need to assume that "D's meals are not more nutritious than O's"? No, if we negate that assumption and say, "Hey, author, D's meals are more nutritious than O's", that doesn't hurt the author. She is only arguing about whether or not O's meals are nutritious, never about whether they are more or less nutritious than some other thing (this is a switch from Absolute language to Relative language).

   5%
5. E

   Bad Assumption - Irrelevant Quality5% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that Danto Foods’ public relations department would not approve a draft of a report that was

   Did the argument need to assume that "Danto's PR dept would not approve a draft of a report that's hostile to Danto products"? This is off topic. The argument is about Ocksenfrey's products, a that is hostile to their products, and whether those products are / aren't nutritious. The author doesn't need to assume anything about a report hostile to Danto's foods. If we negated this assumption, "Danto's PR dept would approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto", that might feel like it weakens by suggesting that the PR department isn't biased, but it's not much proof that they aren't biased, and we're not really trying to fight the idea that they're biased. We're trying to accept that CR might be a biased report, but find a way to say, "That still doesn't prove that Ocksenfrey's boxed meals are nutritious."

   5%