Board member: The J Foundation

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   takes for granted that a work that never mentions any laudable achievements cannot be of

   High intellectual value is not relevant to the argument.

   1%
2. B

   Unsupported5% picked this

   confuses a condition necessary for the receipt of a grant with a condition sufficient for the

   The condition necessary for receipt of a grant is that it not contain any material detrimental to the foundation. Since the evidence is about mentioning laudable achievements, the argument does not confuse a condition necessary for a grant as sufficient to provide a grant.

   5%
3. C

   Correct91% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that a work that does not mention a foundation's laudable achievements is harmful

   Why this is right

   This bridges the gap between ~L → D not mentioning the laudable achievements and containing material detrimental to the foundations reputation.

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

   91%
4. D

   Out of Scope0% picked this

   fails to consider that recipients of a grant usually strive to meet

   What other recipients of a grant do is not relevant to an argument about this one recipient.

   0%
5. E

   Too Weak2% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that the work that was produced with the aid of the grant may have met all conditions other than

   This would not weaken the argument since avoiding detriment to the J Foundation’s reputation would still imply that the recipient failed to meet the conditions of the grant.

   2%