Police captain: The chief of police

Answer choices

1. A

   Contradicted: limited sample15% picked this

   bases a rebuttal of accusations of graft on knowledge about only a limited

   The author says she knows with certainty that "no officer in her precinct" has taken these gifts. That's not a sample of officers. That's the entire set of officers.

   15%
2. B

   Correct75% picked this

   fails to consider that there may be other instances of graft besides those indicated by

   Why this is right

   Because this begins with fails to consider, we ask ourselves, "would it weaken this argument if there are other instances of graft besides the two kinds indicated by the chief"? Sure! The captain only ruled out the two types of graft mentioned by the chief, but until she rules out other types of graft in her precinct, she hasn't convinced us the recent accusations are unfounded. This is getting at the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. The chief never said that "only these two things count as graft", just "if you do either of these two things, it counts as graft". A similarly flawed argument might say: Sharon has indicated that limousines and helicopters take people from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. However, I know with certainty that none of my friends in Los Angeles have ever taken such modes of transport, so the recent accusations that some of my LA friends were in Vegas are unfounded.

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

   75%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Ad Hominem5% picked this

   bases a claim about the actions of individuals on an appeal to the character

   The captain's conclusion is about the actions of individuals (none of the officers at my precinct have committed the action of graft). Is the captain's evidence appealing to the character of the officers? No. It's just saying that the captain knows with certainty that none of the officers have ever accepted cash or objects worth more than $100.

   5%
4. D

   Out of Scope: corruption4% picked this

   takes for granted that if the accusations of graft are unfounded, so is any

   When we see a flaw answer structured like takes for granted that if X, so is Y then X would need to match the evidence, and Y the conclusion. Here, X = the accusations of graft are unfounded Does that match the evidence? Heck, no. That's the conclusion. We could stop reading there. If we continue reading, it's accusing the conclusion of being a claim about corruption, which was never even mentioned in the argument.

   4%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Self-Contradiction2% picked this

   relies on a premise that contradicts the conclusion drawn in

   The premise is "I know with certainty that no officer in my precinct has taken such gifts". According to this answer choice, the conclusion is "I'm not really sure whether any officer in my precinct has taken such gifts", which clearly the conclusion does not say.

   2%