GetThisDone wrote:
Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.
Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s argument?
(A) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail
(B) trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen otherwise
(C) criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself
(D) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim
(E) presupposing what it sets out to establish
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
As with all "Flaw in the Reasoning" questions, you must closely examine the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the editorial concludes that the advice of the economic advisor is untrustworthy and “the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.” What support is offered for this position? Is a discussion of taxation issued presented? Is a discussion of the cost of government service provided? Is the position of the economic advisor dissected? No. According to the editorial, the only reason for ignoring the economic advisor’s advice is that the advisor was convicted in his youth of embezzlement. This fact has no bearing on the argument made by the advisor, and focuses instead on attacking the person making the argument. This is a classic Source or ad hominem argument, and you should immediately seek an answer choice that reflects this fact.
Answer choice (A): A proposal is not rejected in the stimulus; rather, a goal is advocated by the advisor and then the author questions whether that goal can be met by examining the background of the advisor. There is no discussion of a “particular implementation” that is likely to fail.
Answer choice (B): This answer fails the Fact Test because there is no discussion of “what could happen otherwise” and no discussion of people’s fears.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. The answer is a perfect description of a Source argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer describes an evidence error in which a lack of evidence for a position is considered to hurt the claim. In the argument, the author improperly used evidence about the advisor, and this mistake is the error in the argument. Even though this introduced a flaw into the argument, from the author’s perspective this was an attempt to use evidence against a position to hurt the position. The editorial did not state or indicate that there was a lack of evidence when forming the conclusion. Put simply, the editor thought he had a reason that undermined the claim; no argument was made that there was a lack of evidence.
Answer choice (E): This answer describes Circular Reasoning. But, because the argument in the stimulus gives reasons for its position (albeit weak ones), the argument is not circular.
_________________