Please provide explanations
Ross: The profitability of Company X, restored to private ownership five years ago, is clear evidence that businesses will always fare better under private than under public ownership.
Julia: Wrong. A close look at the records shows that X has been profitable since the appointment of a first-class manager, which happened while X was still in the pubic sector.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in Ross’s claim on which Julia’s response focuses?
(A) The evidence Ross cites comes from only a single observed case, that of Company X. Julia's response does not address any issue related to other companies.
(B) The profitability of Company X might be only temporary. Ross does not talk of how long profitability lasts. He only attributes it to private ownership.
(C) Ross’s statement leaves open the possibility that the cause he cites came after the effect he attributes to it.
(D) No mention is made of companies that are partly government owned and partly privately owned. No mention is made of partly owned companies.
(E) No exact figures are given for the current profits of Company X. We do not require exact figures as Julia's response does not use any figures to focus on Ross's weakpoint.
I think the answer is C.
According to Ross's Argument:
PublicOwnership -> PrivateOwnerShip -> Profitability
However the following case is also possible.
Public Ownership -> Profitability -> Private OwnerShip -> Still Profitable
In the first case Ross attributes Profitability (effect) to Private Ownership (Cause).
However it could also be that Public Ownership(actualCause) leads to Profitability (effect) followed later in time by PrivateOwnership (Ross's theoretical cause) as shown in the second case.
In this case Ross's cause comes after the effect that he attributes to the cause.
This is the weak point which Julia's response focuses on, that Company X became profitable while still under Public ownership.
My debrief: done-and-dusted-730-q49-v40