This question follows a classical style of CR: using "similar" but irrelevant reasoning.
ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:Fact: Sarah, who is an excellent mechanic, said that in her
opinion the used car John is considering is in good mechanical condition.
Fact: when Emmett asked her
opinion of his new haircut Sarah lied and said she thought it looked good.
Sub-conclusion: it is clear that Sarah cannot be trusted to give an honest opinion
Main conclusion: it is very likely that Sarah also lied in giving her opinion of the mechanical condition of that car.
Question: The argument is flawed by virtue of having committed which one of the following errors of reasoning?
Pre-thinking: is "opinion of
car" relevant to "opinion of
hair"
ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:(A) It fails to offer any grounds for the attack it makes on the character of the person.
Wrong. Out of scope. The
MAIN conclusion just says Sarah's opinion about the car is not true. The
MAIN conclusion does not attack Sarah's character.
(B) It confuses claims about the past with claims about the future
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about past vs. future.
(C) It bases a sweeping claim on the evidence provided by an instance that is not clearly relevant
Correct. Clearly, the
opinion about hair is NOT relevant to opinion about car. Hair and car are not in the same category. You can't use an apple to replace an orange. Evidences must be in the same category to make the comparison valid.
(D) It presents evidence in value-laden terms that presuppose the conclusion for which that evidence is being offered.
Wrong. Out of scope. The evidence used in the argument does not presuppose the conclusion. D talks about circular reasoning, but it's NOT the case here.
(E) It wrongly assumes that because someone is a competent judge of one kind of thing, that person will be a competent judge of a very different kind of thing.
Wrong. SHELL game. E is a
reverse answer.
The logic of the argument is: A is
NOT a competent judge of X ==> A is
NOT a competent judge of Y either.
But the logic of E is: A is a competent judge of X ==> A is a competent judge of Y.
Clearly, E is a reverse version of the argument. Hence, E is wrong.
Hope it helps.