Bunuel
Fareena: Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant when it comes to financial planning. As a result, many find themselves destitute in their old age, unable to afford even basic necessities. The government should mandate that all working individuals invest 20% of their monthly income into a state retirement fund. This step would take care of the issue of lack of financial planning and thus, solve for good, the cost of living crisis among the elderly.
Paul: I think your conclusion is wrong. People should be able to spend or save their money as they see fit. In the case of adults, at least, it is the individual’s responsibility to manage their finances, not the government’s.
In the table, select the most serious flaw in
Fareena’s reasoning and the most serious flaw in
Paul’s reasoning. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Fareena: Conclusion : Govt should mandate that all working professionals invest 20% monthly income in state retirement fund as it would take care of lack of finacial planning and thus solve cost of living crisis among elderly
Paul - Conclusion: Govt should not mandate that individuals invest 20% because People should be able to spend or save as they fit. As adults it is individual's responsibility to manage their finances, not governmants
a)Baselessly presumes that there can be only one solution to the stated problem.
-- It is flaw for Fareena's argument as she thinks govt mandate is the only solution for the problem.
b)Reasoning is irrelevant to the stated conclusion
-- Both people had reasoning relevant so this is out
c)Fails to consider that a factor contributing to a phenomenon may not be the only factor behind the phenomenon
-- It is a flaw for Paul's argument as her conclusion rejects mandate while it could be one factor and others also need to be understood.
d)Presumes that a particular factor cannot affect multiple phenomenon.
-- no multiple phenomenon is talked so out
e)Fails to interpret the context-specific meaning of an ambiguous term.
-- out as there is no ambiguous term