daagh
In most countries, lower taxes stimulate economic growth, which is an increase of the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services. In the nation of Tattua, economic growth is significantly higher than it is in the nation of Hothal. Clearly, therefore, Tattua's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Hothal's are.
The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
A. It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B. It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C. It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
Reading the question: As in Drivers Over 30, here we have a couple short statements of evidence and then a statement of opinion--a conclusion. Here, the conclusion statement is introduced by the word "clearly," which is almost invariably used when a statement isn't clear, in which case that statement is an opinion. These brief arguments resemble syllogisms. The most famous syllogism is: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." When you confront a syllogistic or pseudo-syllogistic argument, you can build your filter using term matching.
Creating a filter: as in Drivers over 30, we can match terms by sketching or imagining a table:
The worst mismatch of terms here is the last one. The argument appears to equate economic growth and technological advancement. Or, possibly, it assumes that advanced tech is the cause of the economic growth and not something else, like lower taxes. Either one of these views is not stated or supported in the argument as it stands, so we have found a major weakness in the argument.
Applying the filter: The key is that there could be something else that has caused economic growth. That notion is conveyed by answer choice (C). Choice (A) isn't true; the conclusion is not a paraphrase, since, as we've said, it comes out of nowhere with the new terms "technology" and "advancement." Similarly, choice (B) is off because the argument is missing connections, not offering contradictory connections. Skipping to choice (E): this answer choice, like (A), would require mentioning "technological advancement" earlier in the argument. Similarly, (D) means there is a logical loop, but tech advancement is not referred to earlier. Note that, given the format of the answer choices, a logical test such as the negation test is not possible, so we have had to rely solely on our filter to get to the answer.
The correct answer is (C).Attachment:
image004.jpg [ 10.74 KiB | Viewed 2700 times ]