Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Since Professor Smythe has been head of the department, the [#permalink]
11 Jan 2007, 00:26
This post received KUDOS
50% (01:49) correct
50% (01:36) wrong based on 6 sessions
Since Professor Smythe has been head of the department, the most distinguished member of the faculty has resigned, fewer new courses have been developed, student has dropped, and the reputation of the department has gone down. These facts provide conclusive evidence that Professor Smythe was appointed to undermine the department.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) overlooks the fact that something can have the reputation for being of poor quality without being of poor quality
(B) bases a general claim on a few exceptional instances
(C) assumes that because an action was followed by a change, the action was undertaken to bring about that change
(D) fails to distinguish between a decline in quantity and a decline in quality
(E) presupposes what it purports to establish
A) Says nothing about the Professors actual quality
B) Not really in scope and the instances don't really appear to be all that exceptional
D) This doesnt make sense
C is correct. If the question said "provide evidence that Professor Smythe has undermined the department," it would be better but still have some holes in the logic. As it is, the author is assuming that whoever was in charge of hiring the Professor had a desire to undermine the department and so hired someone who would. But the passage says nothing about the views of whoever hired him or the hiring at all. So it is assuming that the people who hired him wanted all of this to happen.
wall street...bulls, bears, people from connecticut
Maybe the best way to look at this problem is to link the claimed cause (hiring new dept head) and the effects (resigns, dropped in classes). The argument is flawed because it provides no evidence that the Smthye caused the negative effects. In other words, the argument simply makes the assumption that Smthye was hired to bring about those problems to the department.
Take a look at choice C again and make the association that hiring Smthye is the "action" and the negative effects were the "change". Then C will make sense.