Joshi is clearly letting campaign

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match7% picked this

   takes for granted that because certain events occurred sequentially, the earlier events caused

   The author is concluding that campaign contributions caused the pro-development votes, but did her premise establish which of those things was the earlier event, which was the later? No. So the part of this answer that acts like the argument described earlier / later is what kills it.

   7%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   confuses one thing’s being necessary for another to occur with its being sufficient to

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an author messes up the directionality of a conditional logic statement. Did this argument have any conditional logic? Nope. So let's eliminate this.

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope: moral judgment2% picked this

   makes a moral judgment when only a factual judgment can

   The author's conclusion is just making a causal judgment, that the campaign contributions of the property developers is influencing how Joshi votes. We can't help making a moral judgment as we read that, but the author didn't. She didn't use any normative language like "wrong, should not, unjustified, ought not to".

   2%
4. D

   Correct87% picked this

   presumes that one thing is the cause of another when it could easily be an

   Why this is right

   Does the author conclude/assume that one thing causes another? Yes, she thinks the campaign money causes the pro-development voting record. Could it easily be possible that a pro-development voting record would cause developers to fund your re-election campaign? Yes. The author's conclusion acts like what's going on is clearly the former explanation, and this answer is pointing out the objection that the latter could easily be the real explanation.

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

   87%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw1% picked this

   has a conclusion that is simply a restatement of one of the

   This describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, which is almost never the correct answer. (Learn this language as well as "presumes the truth of the conclusion") Does a premise say "Yoshi is letting contributions influence his votes"? No, only the conclusion says that.

   1%