Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
cr_1000 - Finance Minister [#permalink]
18 Mar 2006, 10:29
0% (00:00) correct
100% (02:28) wrong based on 1 sessions
Without information that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written. No one witnessed the meeting, however, except the ministerâ€™s aide. It is clear, therefore, that the finance minister was ultimately brought down, not by any of his powerful political enemies, but by his own trusted aide.
The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?
(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion
(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur without another thingâ€™s already having occurred, then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing
(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought about in that way
(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue
(E) treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect
"To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities." - Bruce Lee
The culprit could either be the minister's aide or the opp. party leader.
"To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed."