University president: When a faculty

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Outcome Match2% picked this

   The latest government scandal was caused primarily by a lack of oversight, which in turn led to corruption. Since no amount of oversight can

   This answer concludes that X should not be the only topic of discussion. The original states that it's good to talk about X, and doesn't address whether or not it should be the only topic of discussion.

   2%
2. B

   Correct90% picked this

   The latest government scandal has been attributed to lack of oversight, although the true cause of the scandal was simple corruption. Nonetheless, this discussion

   Why this is right

   We could abstractly describe this answer choice like this: People blamed a situation on X, but the true cause was Y. But X is important, so it's good that X is being discussed. This is a good match for the original, illustrating the same type of principle.

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

   90%
3. C

   Bad Outcome Match4% picked this

   The latest government scandal has been attributed to both lack of oversight and corruption. As a result, these important concerns are now being discussed.

   This answer concludes that it's good for a certain situation to have occurred. The original concludes that it's good to talk about a topic which was brought to light by a certain situation. It doesn't conclude that the situation itself was good.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Outcome Match2% picked this

   The latest government scandal has been analyzed as a case of simple corruption, although corruption had little to do with it. Because the true

   This answer choice concludes that something was harmful. The original concludes that something was good.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Trigger Match2% picked this

   The latest government scandal has been analyzed as a case of simple corruption, with no mention of the role played by lack of oversight.

   We could say that the original has two triggers. First, there was the background situation / opposing idea, where something was blamed on low academic standards when that wasn't really the cause. Second, there was the trigger in the evidence: academic standards are still important. In this answer, the background situation describes "oversight" as something that wasn't addressed at all. The original never claims that dishonesty was never mentioned. The evidence in this answer also states that corruption played the largest role in the scandal. This is the opposite of our original, which claimed that academic standards are important in spite of the fact that it didn't really play a role in the falsification of research.

   2%