Bunuel wrote:
Politician P: My opponent claims that the government is obligated to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and health care. Because raising taxes to increase funding for schools and health care would make taxpayers upset over their loss of buying power, my opponent is simply mistaken.
Politician P's reasoning is questionable because it involves
(A) presupposing that a claim is mistaken on the grounds that the person defending it advocates other unpopular views
(B) assuming that a claim is false on the grounds that the person defending it is of questionable character
(C) concluding that a view is false on the grounds that its implementation would lead to unhappiness
(D) appealing to wholly irrelevant issues to deflect attention away from the real issue
(E) insisting that an obligation exists without offering any evidence that it exists
Its C and D that look good.
In D 'appealing' does not make much sense. Does politician P makes an appeal, i guess not since he/she is rather concluding based upon his/her opponent's claim. "Deflection' was still considerable. However, C was not a straight choice.
_________________
Pain + Reflection = Progress | Ray Dalio
Good Books to read prior to MBA