Accountant: The newspaper industry

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Description2% picked this

   reinterpreting a popular analogy in order to use that analogy to support

   There's no analogy in the accountant's argument — and no reinterpretation. The accountant directly addresses costs vs. profits, not analogical reasoning.

   2%
2. B

   Bad Description5% picked this

   using economic data to raise doubts about the current effectiveness of a

   The accountant doesn't question the effectiveness of an "approach." The newspaper industry isn't pursuing an approach — they're offering an explanation for falling profits. The accountant challenges that explanation, not an approach's effectiveness.

   5%
3. C

   Bad Description1% picked this

   criticizing a newly developed method by demonstrating that a conventional method

   The accountant doesn't criticize a "newly developed method" or compare it to a conventional one. There's no comparison between methods at all — the argument is about explanations for falling profits.

   1%
4. D

   Correct90% picked this

   challenging an explanation that has been given for a phenomenon in order to introduce

   Why this is right

   This describes the accountant's method exactly. The accountant challenges the industry's explanation for falling profits (rising newsprint costs) by showing newsprint hasn't actually been getting more expensive, then introduces a different explanation (falling circulation and advertising). Both halves of (D) are present.

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

   90%
5. E

   Bad Description2% picked this

   calling into question a justification for a practice by showing how the same justification can be used to

   The accountant doesn't use a "reductio" or show that a justification supports an undesirable practice. She just disputes one explanation and offers another. There's no parallel-extension move.

   2%