Government statistics show that

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Equivocation19% picked this

   ambiguously uses the term "average" in two

   This answer alludes to the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the same term is used two different times to mean two very different things. (This answer is almost always wrong). The two usages of 'average' in this argument are comparable. They're both talking about the "average income for a family". The first instance is saying, for the past five years that number has risen. The second instance is saying, the Anderson family's income currently matches that number.

   19%
2. B

   Contradicted5% picked this

   fails to take into account inflation with respect to the Andersen

   It does not fail to take into account inflation. It says that the Andersen family's real income must have increased, and "real income" is adjusted for inflation.

   5%
3. C

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that most families' incomes are

   Since this begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows weakens. Can we object to the argument by saying, "Hey, author -- most families' incomes are below average"? No. We are explicitly told that the Anderson family's income is not below average; it is average. We're not trying to argue that their income isn't average. We're trying to object by arguing that their income hasn't increased over the last five years.

   3%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that the Andersen family's real income was above average in

   Why this is right

   Since this begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows weakens. Can we object to the argument by saying, "Hey, author -- the Andersen family's real income was above average in the recent past"? Sure! If their income was recently above average, and now it's just average, then it sounds like the family's real income has recently declined. That goes strongly against the conclusion that "their income must have increased over the last five years".

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

   72%
5. E

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: no errors1% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the government makes no errors in gathering accurate estimates

   Since this begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows was something the argument needed to assume. The argument definitely wasn't assuming that the government is 100% perfect in gathering accurate estimates of family income. Even if they are only 99% accurate, this argument would make just as much sense.

   1%