Bunuel
A recent poll showed that 96% of the country's animal owners were strongly against the placing of taxes on animal owning. The revenues collected from such a tax would be used to improve the health conditions of rescued animals. Therefore, the results of the final vote showing that 68% of the population are in favor of taxes for the owning of animals must have been incorrectly calculated or manipulated.
A major flaw in the argument above is that
A. it mistakenly claims that the opinion of a biased sample group reflects that of a larger group
B. it clearly shows support for one of the positions it describes
C. the author makes an assumption about the intended use of revenues from the tax
D. it does not provide any actual evidence of ill intentions or deceit
E. the personal opinions of people who own animals are not taken into account
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
A recent poll showed that 96% of the country's animal owners were strongly against the placing of taxes on animal owning. The revenues collected from such a tax would be used to improve the health conditions of rescued animals. Therefore, the results of the final vote showing that 68% of the population are in favor of taxes for the owning of animals must have been incorrectly calculated or manipulated.
A major flaw in the argument above is thatA. it mistakenly claims that the opinion of a biased sample group reflects that of a larger group
Terrific work!
This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1 and 2 are premises, citing facts. The last sentence begins with the conclusion conjunction Therefore so it's the conclusion, but it also includes information on the results of the vote:
Premise A: 96% of animal owners are against taxes on animal owning
+
Premise B: revenues from the taxes are to be used to help rescued animals
+
Premise C: 68% of the population are in favor of taxes on animal owning
≠
Conclusion: the results of the vote must have been miscalculated or manipulated
The strong opposition (96% against) among animal owners can be explained by their bias - the fact that they would be the one to pay the tax. Therefore, they cannot serve as a suitable sample group of citizens, and a similar opposition cannot be expected in the greater population.B. it clearly shows support for one of the positions it describes
Incorrect.
This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1 and 2 are premises, citing facts. The last sentence begins with the conclusion conjunction Therefore so it's the conclusion, but it also includes information on the results of the vote:
Premise A: 96% of animal owners are against taxes on animal owning
+
Premise B: revenues from the taxes are to be used to help rescued animals
+
Premise C: 68% of the population are in favor of taxes on animal owning
≠
Conclusion: the results of the vote must have been miscalculated or manipulated
As long as the conclusion can be logically supported by premises, an argument cannot be deemed flawed because it supports a certain position that it has described. On the contrary - an argument most often promotes some sort of position!C. the author makes an assumption about the intended use of revenues from the tax
Incorrect.
This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1 and 2 are premises, citing facts. The last sentence begins with the conclusion conjunction Therefore so it's the conclusion, but it also includes information on the results of the vote:
Premise A: 96% of animal owners are against taxes on animal owning
+
Premise B: revenues from the taxes are to be used to help rescued animals
+
Premise C: 68% of the population are in favor of taxes on animal owning
≠
Conclusion: the results of the vote must have been miscalculated or manipulated
The second premise clearly states that the revenues from the taxes are intended to help rescued animals. Therefore, the statement in this answer choice is inaccurate since this information is not assumed, but purely factual.D. it does not provide any actual evidence of ill intentions or deceit
Incorrect.
The argument is claiming the results are incorrect, and offers two possible explanations for this discrepancy - mistake or deceit. The author does not claim deceit is necessarily the correct explanation and therefore is not required to present evidence to support such a claim.E. the personal opinions of people who own animals are not taken into account
Incorrect.
This answer choice is incorrect since the personal opinions of the animal owners are definitely taken into account - they are represented by the poll mentioned in the first premise and as a part of the objecting votes in the general vote described in premise C.
25 Mar 2025, 00:30
25%
(medium)
22%
(01:51)
wrong 
