PT151 S4 Q13 ExplanationLegislator: My colleague says

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: personal character trait16% picked this

   treats a personal character trait as if it were evidence of the professional viewpoint of the

   The argument doesn't bring up any personal character traits. This answer is trying to fish in people who had a sense that this argument involved an Ad Hominem flaw (one version of ad hominem, although incredibly rare, is rejecting an argument on the basis of the source's personal qualities, rather than the merits of their ideas).

   16%
2. B

   Correct65% picked this

   fails to address the grounds on which the colleague claims the act

   Why this is right

   When we complain about an Ad Hominem move, we're saying, "No fair — you can't dismiss someone's ideas just because they have a biased interest in being right or because they have conflicting past behavior. You need to assess the merits of that person's ideas!" That's what this answer is complaining about. Our author addressed a tangential issue about the colleague, rather than substantively addressing the colleague's concern about whether this act would deter investment.

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

   65%
3. C

   Out of Scope: minority position2% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the colleague's opposition to the act is the minority position

   The author isn't assuming anything about whether the colleague is in the minority or majority position in the legislature. The argument wouldn't be affected one way or the other if she were one vs. the other.

   2%
4. D

   Out of Scope: voters1% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that voters will oppose legislation that

   This argument has nothing to do with voters, so the author isn't making any assumptions about what voters will / won't oppose.

   1%
5. E

   Does Consider / Not an Objection15% picked this

   fails to consider that the colleague's opposition to the act may be a response

   The author is definitely considering alternative explanations for why the colleague is opposing the act. In saying, "this surely is not the real reason she opposes the act", the author is saying, "there must be some other reason". This would strengthen that mindset: she's not opposing because it'll inhibit investment, she's doing so because of her constituents.

   15%