Quote:
Alba: I don’t intend to vote for Senator Frank in the next election. She is not a strong supporter of the war against crime.
Tam: But Senator Frank sponsored the latest anticrime law passed by the Senate.
Alba: If Senator Frank sponsored it, it can’t be a very strong anticrime law.
Which of the following identifies the most serious logical flaw in Alba’s reasoning?
(A) The facts she presents do not support her conclusion that Senator Frank is soft on crime.
(B) She assumes without proof that crime is the most important issue in the upcoming election.
(C) She argues in a circle, using an unsupported assertion to dismiss conflicting evidence.
(D) She attacks Senator Frank on personal grounds rather than on he merit as a political leader.
(E) In deciding not to vote for Senator Frank, she fails to consider issues other than crime.
ARGUMENT
Alba believes that, [prem] since F is not a strong supporter of war on crime, F's support for an anticrime law is not enough to change Alba's mind; even though, these are explicitly conflicting.
(A) the fact she presented that F does not strongly support war on crime, might support her conclusion;
(B) irrelevant;
(D) irrelevant;
(E) irrelevant;
Ans (C) F does not strongly support war, however, she did support an anticrime law - these are conflicting, and Alba dismissed this.