Conservative voter: Universal healthcare is a very controversial issue in our country that conservative voters have traditionally opposed, because of the cost to the taxpayer. Conservative voters should support universal healthcare, however, because under such a healthcare system the government would actually spend fewer tax dollars than at present. In other countries with universal healthcare, the governments spend less tax money per patient than our government currently spends for a healthcare system that is not universal.
A weakness in this argument lies in the fact that the voterThe flaw is that the voter treats universal healthcare as if it is
the only relevant route to lowering government cost per patient. But the evidence given only shows that countries with universal systems spend less per patient. That does not show that adopting universal healthcare is the only way to get that result, or even the only reform conservatives should support.
(A) gives an inconsistent definition of universal health care
This is wrong. The argument does not shift the meaning of universal healthcare.
(B) assumes that universalizing is the only way to reduce the cost per person
This is correct. The argument goes from “countries with universal healthcare spend less per patient” to “therefore conservatives should support universal healthcare,” without considering that per-patient costs might perhaps be reduced by other changes short of universalizing.
(C) changes the subject in order to establish a conclusion
This is wrong. The subject stays the same throughout: healthcare policy and taxpayer cost.
(D) relies on a partisan position to make a policy recommendation
This is not really a flaw. It is perfectly fair to argue from a group’s stated concern to a policy recommendation.
(E) couches an ad hominem (or personal) insult in constructive criticism
Clearly wrong. There is no personal attack.
Answer: (B)