Folks, another q from 1000 CR-Please explain answers.
Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.
In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?
(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy this milk.
(C) Wingzz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) I’m buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT
The original argument seems to be based ONLY on Dr. A's personal opinion, "something is bad because its bad, that's all." So I guess I'll look for something similar.
A. This argument is based on some type of personal experience, Doc A didn't articulate that explicitly in the original argument.
B. Doc A did not indicate that the study lacked credibility, this argument goes something like:
Credibility of source bad; therefore, source's endorsement makes the product bad.
The original argument goes something like this: product bad; study endorses product; study must be wrong.
D. I don't think I'd choose this for the same reason as B, it seems that doc A does not base a product's effectiveness on the endorsement of others, of the lack thereof.
E. This argument offers some evidence for a claim, the original argument did not. This isn't similar.
(C) comes closest for me: "product is good because its good."