Politician: Union leaders argue that

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: mere fact / all viewpoints5% picked this

   treats the mere fact that certain people are union members as sufficient to cast doubt on all of the

   This argument treats the fact that certain people are union leaders as sufficient to cast doubt on their one viewpoint about multinational control of manufacturing. The argument doesn't say that "you should doubt all viewpoints expressed by any union member", as this answer alleges.

   5%
2. B

   Too Strong16% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that anyone whose political motivations are clearly discernible is an unreliable source

   Too Strong: anyone Out of Scope: unreliable source of info It's not clear that union leaders have any political motivations, but I guess we could say within the internal politics of the union they lead, they would have a hard time being re-elected as union leader if wages went down on their watch. But the author hasn't made a sweeping claim like "EVERY SINGLE PERSON with clearly discernible political motivations is an unreliable source of info." The author may well believe that the leader of the Department of Defense is politically motivated to do certain things, but still consider him/her a reliable source of information to legislators. The union leaders aren't really even being discussed as a possible source of information. It's more about whether their arguments should be taken seriously than it is whether "their information should be considered reliable".

   16%
3. C

   Correct68% picked this

   treats circumstances potentially affecting the union leaders' argument as sufficient to discredit

   Why this is right

   The author cites the leaders' vested interest in seeing wages remain high. That could potentially affect their argument of opposing multinational control of manufacturing, since such control supposedly leads to lower average wages. Based only on this, the author moves into her conclusion of "reject this argument", which means she considers the argument sufficiently discredited.

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

   68%
4. D

   Too Strong: only7% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the argument it cites is the union leaders' only argument

   We don't have anything to point to that allows us to say that the author was assuming that this is the only argument for their view. The conclusion is specifically saying we should reject this argument, not necessarily other arguments. Also, even if union leaders did have some other argument for their view, the author would dismiss it the same way (these leaders have a vested interest, so reject it). The author is ready to reject any argument the union leaders offers for this on the same (flawed) grounds that the union leaders are just biased by their own interests in this matter. What we need our answer choice to do is address this problematic idea the author has that she can reject any argument from the union leaders because of their vested interest.

   7%
5. E

   Too Strong: all unions4% picked this

   presumes, without providing evidence, that leaders of all unions argue against increases in multinational

   It doesn't seem clear that this argument is ever referring to the leaders of all unions. I interpret the union leaders being quoted as "some union leaders". However, even if we interpreted it as all union leaders, it wouldn't change anything about why we're yelling at the author. Whether she's shooting down a handful of union leaders or leaders of all unions, she's shooting them down for an invalid reason (vested interest).

   4%