Legislator: A foreign company is

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular1% picked this

   The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a premise presented in support

   This answer describes the famous Circular reasoning flaw. The conclusion here was "we should prohibit this sale". Was there also a premise that said "we should prohibit this sale"? No, that idea wasn't expressed twice.

   1%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw: not Part to Whole1% picked this

   The argument takes for granted that what is true of one particular industry is true

   This argument describes the famous flaw Part vs. Whole. Does the author provide a premise about one particular industry (iron-mining, in this case) and then give a conclusion about industry in general? No, the conclusion is about the specific sale of FerroMetal within the particular industry of iron-mining.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match0% picked this

   The argument defends a practice solely on the grounds that the practice

   Is the author's conclusion defending a practice? No it's suggesting we prohibit a practice. Is the author's evidence (on the grounds that) saying that something is widely accepted? No, there are like six premises and none of them say that. This type of move, "Because most people think X is true, X must be true" is similar to the famous Inappropriate Appeal to Opinion flaw.

   0%
4. D

   Correct95% picked this

   The argument presents a chain of possible consequences of a given event as if it were the only possible chain

   Why this is right

   Does the author present a chain of possible consequences for a given event? Yes, starting with the 4th sentence, our author says, "If we allow the foreign company to buy FerroMetal, this given event will launch this chain of consequences ... - no grounds to stop foreign companies from buying other companies - soon, foreigners control most iron mining - end result is that our manufacturers will no longer be able to rely on a domestic supply of iron ore." Is our author presenting those consequences as if they are the only possible chain of consequences, like those consequences are certain to happen? Yes, actually. the author never hedges his wording, as though these things might / could / probably will happen. He presents them with certainty. We could call this flaw the Slippery Slope flaw, in which someone says, "no, we can't do that because it will start a cascade of things we don't want. We can't socialize medicine by having single-payer healthcare because that's a slippery slope towards socialism."

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

   95%
5. E

   Weak Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   The argument concludes that one event would cause a second event even though the second event would have

   The main conclusion is not causal at all. It's normative: "we should prohibit this sale". So on a quick look, we should bail from this answer after we read that first half. But sometimes Flaw answer choices will use the verb 'concludes', not in reference to the Main Conclusion but in reference to the author's thought process in getting to the main conclusion (even as a synonym for assumes). The author is definitely assuming (mentally concluding) that selling FerroMetal to a foreign company would cause a series of events (we can't stop other foreign companies from buying iron companies / foreigners control most of iron mining / domestic manufacturers don't have reliable supply to depend on). But it would be crazy for us to say about any of those events that they "would have to precede (come before) FerroMetal gets sold to a foreign company".

   2%