Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful
spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services
can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted
of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the
premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in
government services. Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy
employed in the editorial’s argument?
a) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely
b) trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen
c) criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself
d) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim
e) presupposing what it sets out to establish
Main CR Qs link - cr-qs-600-700-level-131508.html
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post.